Ah, well *that* is a good argument then. The lemmings one, not so much. A couple apps that are bad - that is a problem. 642 bullshit apps from one dev - there is clearly something lame going on.
For what its worth, I've used Android for years and have never noticed too much spam. But then I'm not searching for "sexy" apps either. Or at least not after the first time I looked and it was all crap.
For the most part, the Android Market is fine if you either just download things other people recommend, or you browse the popular apps. If you're trying to find something out of the blue, then yeah, its crap. Not sure if the iOS app store is any better, but I did have an original iPhone back in the day and I remember that it was nice that you could browse for apps in iTunes.
Android has long needed some kind of desktop companion (even if its browser based), and if there was one, it would probably help with app discovery.
So yeah, app discovery is the issue that I think you're actually struggling with. How do I find the good apps when there is so much crap? Eliminating some of the crap would help, but ultimately, blind searches are not the best way to find good apps. Google is working on that by recommending more apps that are good, and now showing "related apps" in the new market they rolled out a few months ago.
And I do know that people complain about app discovery in iOS too. Its a big problem for developers.
And although this isn't a solution to the problem (since google needs to fix it themselves) gizmodo often posts lists of good apps. If you didn't see it, you might like this, which was just posted today: http://gizmodo.com/5739420/the-best-android-apps?skyline=true&s=i
Because some people are idiots.....turns out that the previous reviews were right on the money
Okay...
I'm not seeing the issue. Many reviews said the app was garbage. You downloaded the app. It was garbage. Do you really think something about that needs to be fixed?
If you searched for Lemmings and a garbage app was displayed in search results above a good app, I'd say there is an issue. If you were browsing popular apps and a garbage app was shown, I'd say there was an issue.
But once you start searching for something and there just *isn't* a good app, does it really matter if you get back results with bad apps or no apps? As long as the bad apps are clearly labeled, I just don't see how removing them would help. But it would discourage developers, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do in that situation. If there aren't good apps in a certain category, scaring away the only people that did cater to that category will get you nowhere. You should increase incentives to app developers (like get payments working in more foreign countries) and also encourage new developers to enter that category, to increase competition.
But banning bad apps won't do anything positive, and will hurt things. -Taylor
Over the weekend, I attempted two different "Lemmings" apps..... all the reviews said they were garbage...
Then why did you download them?
If google starts pulling peoples apps because they have bad reviews... well, that's just going to piss off devs to spent time on their apps. If they write a bad app and get bad reviews, maybe they'll try harder and write something better.
As a consumer, I just check the reviews. If they're bad, I don't bother. If I search for something and nothing is available with good reviews, I'll basically chock it up to Android's lower app count and not bother wasting my time with bad apps.
I signed up for Android knowing full well that I can't find every app that iOS might have (its a younger platform, thats how it goes), so I don't frustrate myself by pretending an app with bad reviews is still worth downloading.
The app review system works great. I trust it and if you actually listen to it, you won't be frustrated at all, aside from the low app count overall. So yeah, you won't find everything you need, but that doesn't mean google should pull apps - it means they should get more apps to increase the chances of there being a good one. Which is exactly what they're doing. -Taylor
Any time a system will accept multiple entries for one password, the number of guesses an intruder has to make goes down.
This is generally considered bad.
You should never allow bad logins just to make it easier for people to log in when they can't recall their password, that's the wrong way to do it. You should provide an easy way for them to reset their password, not reduce your security across the board (which means password reset mechanisms must be carefully designed as well).
But this is bad for the same reason that simple passwords is bad. If you increase an attacker's chances of getting in by 0.01%, but you have 10,000,000 users, you've now put 1000 more people at risk.
Simply put, you want passwords to be as secure as you can, limited by your users ability to remember their password. And don't cater to the users who haven't logged in in 3 years, cater to the users who log in every day - keep things secure for them.
Just imagine how many people might use their last name as a password, or their last name plus their birthday. Then if you know a user John Smith was born in 1967, you can guess "smith67", and if he uses: smith, Smith, SMITH, smith67, Smith67, or SMITH67, your single guess of smith67 will work for ALL SIX cases. Increasing an attacker's chances SIX fold is terrible.
And for what its worth, I'm blown away that this isn't perfectly clear to every single Slashdot reader. -Taylor
Am i the only one who finds ebooks to be a complete ripoff? I received a kindle for christmas and was completely floored by the fact that most amazon ebooks are $10+! I can go to a half price books and get the book in paperback and sometimes hard back for the same cost or less in most cases. The fact that I'm expected to pay the same for a product with zero manufacuturing costs as a physical "it's mine" copy is outlandish.
Can you carry 1000 books in your pocket?
You're paying for other things when you buy a Kindle book - mostly, convenience. You can carry many books at once and access them from anywhere, even without the Kindle device present (they have a PC/Android/iOS app that syncs your library and last read page).
If the Kindle were cheaper, I may even be willing to pay *extra* for books. I've got several books I'm reading right now and I hate having them all over the place.
You also get books instantly. You can get books from a bookstore pretty much instantly too (depending on your proximity to a book store), but they cost more at a bookstore - because you're paying for convenience.
I recently paid almost 3 times the "shipped from online" Barnes and Noble price for a book to buy at a B&N store because I wanted to start reading it that night.
Its interesting actually: The book (ReWork - though I don't exactly recommend it, turns out) is: (all prices from B&N since they have a brick and mortar and online store) $7.47 Paperback online (on sale from $9.00) $9.02 Nook edition $12.91 Hardcover online $21 (approx, from memory) in store hardcover price
I paid $21 for the book because I wanted it that night. Compared to the digital version, I spent an extra $12, or 8.5% of a kindle (I'd rather have a Kindle than a Nook)
I'd miss the smell of a good book, that's for sure, but otherwise, as long as it can't be DRM'ed out of existence, I wouldn't mind paying the same or even more for a Kindle version.
... There is still no official confirmation. Blackberry, twitter and SMS seem confirmed off....
Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.
...Looks like this should run on existing platforms without too much tweaking by custom ROM builders/manufacturers.
Not sure why you say that. A new platform supports old apps (as has always been the case with Android), but that doesn't have anything to do with old hardware supporting the new platform.
Besides, most existing platforms are phones, and Honeycomb really isn't set up to run on a phone. I'm *sure* it would *run*, and I know enterprising hackers will do it for fun, but I can's imagine it being usable.
That said, there are some existing tablets, and they will seriously benefit from Honeycomb, so I'm sure devs will port it over.
Just don't think there will be lots of Honeycomb ports to phones. It doesn't look like that will be too useful. -Taylor
There are some ways to use other languages - the Mono project is pretty far along with getting C# working for Android, and you can write native C++ apps with the NDK (native development kit), but google strongly suggests not using the NDK just because you'd rather program in C++, as it is much easier to write bad programs in C++ than it is in Java (they suggest using the NDK when you're doing computationally intensive stuff like 3D games, or you have some game engine already written in C++).
For the most part, yeah, you just need to learn Java. But from what I've seen, its not really that bad. I've never more than toyed with Android development, but none of it looks very tough. -Taylor
The US didn't bomb the wreckage because the scene was soon overrun with civilians, which was broadcast on CNN. It would have been horrible PR if those civilians dancing on the wreckage suddenly disappeared and the image faded to static.
Just say "oh no, the self-destruct went off!" and everything will be fine.
.... It took 5 minutes to reply to this, paste doesnt work in chrome, its ugly as sin, and probably the worst commenting system on the web. Just rollback to the old one please. Slashdot isnt ready for web 2.0.
Yeah, paste sucks in chrome. I've found that if you right click and hit paste, it works, but not if you ctrl+v. Or maybe its the other way around.
But the system is wacky. It blows me away that a tech blog can't even come out with a text entry system that doesn't test properly in one of the most popular browsers (and probably the single most popular browser for users of this site).
The whole point of improving comment systems is to improve discourse, but now I don't cite my sources on things because I can't copy and paste links half the time! -Taylor
... The fact that Apple later moved the install into an "optional" section at least shows that they made a move in the right direction.
Yes, I didn't mean to say it was automatic, you had to click the "ok" button, but when they call it an update even though its not installed, that's just as sleazy as an auto-install.
Why would you even bother trying to show them in a positive light after something like that? It was shitty, and they made it slightly less shitty after people complained. That's like raping you for a while, and then deciding to put on a condom to make it better. "A move in the right direction" doesn't mean shit when you're already so far off from the "right" direction.
I know the original article was about auto-installs, and I may have accidentally lumped this in with that, but my point was that people need to stop doing shady things to install stuff on your computer - whether completely automated, or just deceptive. Its my computer and I'm sick of having to be vigilant all the time. Or actually, I don't mind being vigilant because its easy for me, (but I'd still rather not have to) but I'm sick of these people making crap that overloads my mom's computer. I know you can't stop spammers and bad people, but Skype and McAfee and Apple aren't *supposed* to act like spammers and bad people! You should be able to trust companies like that to not screw up your machine. I mean McAfee is an *antivirus* company! They're supposed to fight malware, not create it!
I really wish there were some way to make that illegal without just causing some big legal shithole.
I don't think there's any need to get the police involved. Why is the Mozilla configuration writable to the Skype installer? That's a huge security hole. Fix that first.
Yeah, I don't really want it to be illegal, because laws like that are just going to make things worse, I just know that this kind of thing isn't likely to go away any other way (and it may not be that likely even if it was illegal).
I agree and while I know it doesn't really do anything to fix it, every time I have to upgrade iTunes or anything that requires the Apple installer, I take a screenshot of the installer with Safari checked and send an email to support@apple.com with a bug report.
I would invite everyone who deals with the apple installer to do this. Maybe one person can't change their mind but if they had to deal with a few thousand emails a week pointing out this problem, maybe someone might listen.
Actually, when this came up I mentioned it to my friend that works at Apple. I asked who would make a shitty decision like that, and he said "From the top." "Jobs?" I asked. "Yup." This is the same friend who currently has a Verizon iPhone 4, and who has had it "for a while now". Sadly, he's tight-lipped on everything else, but I really don't buy into the Apple hype anymore anyway.
So, as anecdotal as that may be, it looks like the decision was from Jobs, and he's a guy who's not going to care about some whining Windows users. -Taylor
We should just make a foundation that goes around and sues companies that make auto installing toolbars, maybe hire some layers to pull them through the mud, using despicable legal tricks to stall the case and cost them money.
Small claims court cases submitted out of town or to a minor employee so when they ignore it you autowin.
Yeah, that's not that bad of an idea. I hate that kind of shit, but that's kind of what the companies are asking for when they ignore user rights. They go sleezy, we go sleezy. So much nowadays, people will walk all over you unless some lawyer scares them away from it. -Taylor
Apple installing safari automatically (but apple is already evil so that wasn't too much of a surprise).
Apple never automatically installed Safari on Windows machines. When you use Apple's updater it will have Safari checked as an additional, optional install but you can uncheck that and Safari won't be installed. It's not hidden or automatic, the user can check or uncheck the box as they desire.
When they first introduced the tactic, it was not listed under "optional installs", but right alongside iTunes under "updates" or whatever, so it looked like an update to something you already had. For years, I just clicked "yes" to the apple updater, because it was always just there to update software I had (iTunes). And then one day, it said Safari needed an update, even though I didn't have it installed. Well, *I* noticed this, but plenty of other people didn't.
After a little while, they moved it from "updates" to "additional installs" or whatever, but it was still checked by default. People had to pay attention, and normally with software updaters, you just say yes - its an "update".
You build a certain level of trust with a user that your "updater" will only be used for updates, and it is an abuse of that trust to use it for installing new software without making it extremely clear that something has changed (like not having it checked by default, or having a prompt that is different from the usual software's behavior).
You may say it would be my fault for getting duped, but what about my mom? She doesn't have a lot of money, so her computer is a few years old. She's also not very computer savvy, so she falls victim to every one of these things, and her computer is constantly loaded up with extra junk. All she wants to do is log onto facebook to message her children, and her computer is so slow she can't really do that anymore.
The bottom line is: *When someone like Apple tricks a user into installing new software, they're cheating old ladies out of communication with their loved ones just to pump up their install base.*
I mean, I'm sure I'd like to have an "expert" perform my "sexchange" if I want one, but I was just looking for help solving a programming bug.
I also appreciate that some sites try to help me with my searching, but I'd rather have them provide answers instead of giving yet more search results.
Yeah, when you could customize searches, I always removed "experts exchange" results from my searches, but I don't think google got the hint. They still come up all the f'ing time, and I don't think you can customize searches anymore. Never mattered anyway. -Taylor
" according to the evaluation metrics that we’ve refined over more than a decade, Google’s search quality is better than it has ever been in terms of relevance, freshness and comprehensiveness. "
And thus begins the downfall of Google. Once you start drinking your own lemonade and stop listening to the people who use your product, you're on a greased downhill slope.
Anything that auto-installs needs to go to hell and burn.
Most recent example: My boss finally starts using Chrome instead of IE. Shortly after he starts using it, he complains that Gmail won't load - it gets stuck in a reloading loop. I look it up and NO ONE seems to know what is happening. Clearing the cache - all that - nothing works. A couple weeks later, it happens to me, and I immediately notice something new - a new extension has been installed, a big green "M" in the upper right hand side. McAfee decided I needed their "safe browsing extension" (something I NEVER want), and the safe browsing extension seems to cause the gmail reload loop. I uninstalled it (just because I didn't want it) and immediately noticed that the gmail problem was resolved.
Browser makers (well, google, and maybe mozilla) work really hard to make a kick ass, stable program, and then any jackass with some untested crap can auto-install whatever they want and bring it down. Skype, McAffee, these are supposed to be mature companies (well, some people hate McAfee, but whatever) yet they still pull BS shit (yes, two shits) like auto-installing something that isn't even stable. Or Apple installing safari automatically (but apple is already evil so that wasn't too much of a surprise).
I really wish there were some way to make that illegal without just causing some big legal shithole. Really I just wish there was some code of honor that good software vendors would agree too - autoinstalling being something to avoid (or have a box that says "Do you want to install the Skype shitty toolbar" *making sure* to have a "don't ask me again" checkbox).
This isn't 2003 and I don't want every toolbar you came up with installed on my machine! -Taylor
What about sending one of these to Mars with a nuclear reactor instead of sunlight for the heat source, and using it to make rocket fuel for a return vehicle?
Or is this basically the same thing that Robert Zubrin proposed 15 years ago?
What does stronger than steel actually mean? A spider web is stronger than steel, but I walk through them all the time. A diamond is stronger than steel, but I can hit it with a hammer and it smashes. Stronger than steel sounds good, but just like foods that say they are all natural, doesn't mean anything.
Umm, what? Strength is usually "Tensile Strength", which is expressed in relation to the cross sectional area. Spider webs are extremely thin, so they're not that strong. I think just about everyone knows that smaller thinner things are weaker. That's why we can crumble aluminum foil in our hands, but Audi can still make car frames out of aluminum, or why bridges are made of steel but I can bend a paper-clip with my fingers...
What world do you live in where it isn't perfectly obvious why something that is extremely thin, even if made from a strong material, would be weak? -Taylor
You can only manage that kind of effort temporarily. Soon your work goes into the shitter, despite feeling that you're getting more done. And you need an equivalently long recovery period just to get back on track afterward.
Being asked to do it for an indeterminate amount of time isn't a good sign.
So what you're saying is, every so often he can push them until they nearly break, and then back off?;) -Taylor
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, well *that* is a good argument then. The lemmings one, not so much. A couple apps that are bad - that is a problem. 642 bullshit apps from one dev - there is clearly something lame going on.
For what its worth, I've used Android for years and have never noticed too much spam. But then I'm not searching for "sexy" apps either. Or at least not after the first time I looked and it was all crap.
For the most part, the Android Market is fine if you either just download things other people recommend, or you browse the popular apps. If you're trying to find something out of the blue, then yeah, its crap. Not sure if the iOS app store is any better, but I did have an original iPhone back in the day and I remember that it was nice that you could browse for apps in iTunes.
Android has long needed some kind of desktop companion (even if its browser based), and if there was one, it would probably help with app discovery.
So yeah, app discovery is the issue that I think you're actually struggling with. How do I find the good apps when there is so much crap? Eliminating some of the crap would help, but ultimately, blind searches are not the best way to find good apps. Google is working on that by recommending more apps that are good, and now showing "related apps" in the new market they rolled out a few months ago.
And I do know that people complain about app discovery in iOS too. Its a big problem for developers.
And although this isn't a solution to the problem (since google needs to fix it themselves) gizmodo often posts lists of good apps. If you didn't see it, you might like this, which was just posted today:
http://gizmodo.com/5739420/the-best-android-apps?skyline=true&s=i
-Taylor
Because some people are idiots.....turns out that the previous reviews were right on the money
Okay...
I'm not seeing the issue. Many reviews said the app was garbage. You downloaded the app. It was garbage. Do you really think something about that needs to be fixed?
If you searched for Lemmings and a garbage app was displayed in search results above a good app, I'd say there is an issue. If you were browsing popular apps and a garbage app was shown, I'd say there was an issue.
But once you start searching for something and there just *isn't* a good app, does it really matter if you get back results with bad apps or no apps? As long as the bad apps are clearly labeled, I just don't see how removing them would help. But it would discourage developers, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do in that situation. If there aren't good apps in a certain category, scaring away the only people that did cater to that category will get you nowhere. You should increase incentives to app developers (like get payments working in more foreign countries) and also encourage new developers to enter that category, to increase competition.
But banning bad apps won't do anything positive, and will hurt things.
-Taylor
Over the weekend, I attempted two different "Lemmings" apps ..... all the reviews said they were garbage...
Then why did you download them?
If google starts pulling peoples apps because they have bad reviews... well, that's just going to piss off devs to spent time on their apps. If they write a bad app and get bad reviews, maybe they'll try harder and write something better.
As a consumer, I just check the reviews. If they're bad, I don't bother. If I search for something and nothing is available with good reviews, I'll basically chock it up to Android's lower app count and not bother wasting my time with bad apps.
I signed up for Android knowing full well that I can't find every app that iOS might have (its a younger platform, thats how it goes), so I don't frustrate myself by pretending an app with bad reviews is still worth downloading.
The app review system works great. I trust it and if you actually listen to it, you won't be frustrated at all, aside from the low app count overall. So yeah, you won't find everything you need, but that doesn't mean google should pull apps - it means they should get more apps to increase the chances of there being a good one. Which is exactly what they're doing.
-Taylor
Any time a system will accept multiple entries for one password, the number of guesses an intruder has to make goes down.
This is generally considered bad.
You should never allow bad logins just to make it easier for people to log in when they can't recall their password, that's the wrong way to do it. You should provide an easy way for them to reset their password, not reduce your security across the board (which means password reset mechanisms must be carefully designed as well).
But this is bad for the same reason that simple passwords is bad. If you increase an attacker's chances of getting in by 0.01%, but you have 10,000,000 users, you've now put 1000 more people at risk.
Simply put, you want passwords to be as secure as you can, limited by your users ability to remember their password. And don't cater to the users who haven't logged in in 3 years, cater to the users who log in every day - keep things secure for them.
Just imagine how many people might use their last name as a password, or their last name plus their birthday. Then if you know a user John Smith was born in 1967, you can guess "smith67", and if he uses: smith, Smith, SMITH, smith67, Smith67, or SMITH67, your single guess of smith67 will work for ALL SIX cases. Increasing an attacker's chances SIX fold is terrible.
And for what its worth, I'm blown away that this isn't perfectly clear to every single Slashdot reader.
-Taylor
Err, I was looking at the wrong item - there is no paperback, that was an MP3 Audiobook price. Everything else is fine.
Am i the only one who finds ebooks to be a complete ripoff? I received a kindle for christmas and was completely floored by the fact that most amazon ebooks are $10+! I can go to a half price books and get the book in paperback and sometimes hard back for the same cost or less in most cases. The fact that I'm expected to pay the same for a product with zero manufacuturing costs as a physical "it's mine" copy is outlandish.
Can you carry 1000 books in your pocket?
You're paying for other things when you buy a Kindle book - mostly, convenience. You can carry many books at once and access them from anywhere, even without the Kindle device present (they have a PC/Android/iOS app that syncs your library and last read page).
If the Kindle were cheaper, I may even be willing to pay *extra* for books. I've got several books I'm reading right now and I hate having them all over the place.
You also get books instantly. You can get books from a bookstore pretty much instantly too (depending on your proximity to a book store), but they cost more at a bookstore - because you're paying for convenience.
I recently paid almost 3 times the "shipped from online" Barnes and Noble price for a book to buy at a B&N store because I wanted to start reading it that night.
Its interesting actually:
The book (ReWork - though I don't exactly recommend it, turns out) is:
(all prices from B&N since they have a brick and mortar and online store)
$7.47 Paperback online (on sale from $9.00)
$9.02 Nook edition
$12.91 Hardcover online
$21 (approx, from memory) in store hardcover price
I paid $21 for the book because I wanted it that night. Compared to the digital version, I spent an extra $12, or 8.5% of a kindle (I'd rather have a Kindle than a Nook)
I'd miss the smell of a good book, that's for sure, but otherwise, as long as it can't be DRM'ed out of existence, I wouldn't mind paying the same or even more for a Kindle version.
-Taylor
... There is still no official confirmation. Blackberry, twitter and SMS seem confirmed off....
Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.
Texting is tough without SMS.
-Taylor
you wouldn't be reading Slashdot, and thus wouldn't be able to answer the question of "what would you do if you were there"...
The question wasn't: "If you were there, how would you answer this question."
It was: What would you do if you were in Egypt and found that your connection had been cut off.
Me, I'd shout the packets.
-Taylor
...Looks like this should run on existing platforms without too much tweaking by custom ROM builders/manufacturers.
Not sure why you say that. A new platform supports old apps (as has always been the case with Android), but that doesn't have anything to do with old hardware supporting the new platform.
Besides, most existing platforms are phones, and Honeycomb really isn't set up to run on a phone. I'm *sure* it would *run*, and I know enterprising hackers will do it for fun, but I can's imagine it being usable.
That said, there are some existing tablets, and they will seriously benefit from Honeycomb, so I'm sure devs will port it over.
Just don't think there will be lots of Honeycomb ports to phones. It doesn't look like that will be too useful.
-Taylor
There are some ways to use other languages - the Mono project is pretty far along with getting C# working for Android, and you can write native C++ apps with the NDK (native development kit), but google strongly suggests not using the NDK just because you'd rather program in C++, as it is much easier to write bad programs in C++ than it is in Java (they suggest using the NDK when you're doing computationally intensive stuff like 3D games, or you have some game engine already written in C++).
For the most part, yeah, you just need to learn Java. But from what I've seen, its not really that bad. I've never more than toyed with Android development, but none of it looks very tough.
-Taylor
The US didn't bomb the wreckage because the scene was soon overrun with civilians, which was broadcast on CNN. It would have been horrible PR if those civilians dancing on the wreckage suddenly disappeared and the image faded to static.
Just say "oh no, the self-destruct went off!" and everything will be fine.
.... It took 5 minutes to reply to this, paste doesnt work in chrome, its ugly as sin, and probably the worst commenting system on the web. Just rollback to the old one please. Slashdot isnt ready for web 2.0.
Yeah, paste sucks in chrome. I've found that if you right click and hit paste, it works, but not if you ctrl+v. Or maybe its the other way around.
But the system is wacky. It blows me away that a tech blog can't even come out with a text entry system that doesn't test properly in one of the most popular browsers (and probably the single most popular browser for users of this site).
The whole point of improving comment systems is to improve discourse, but now I don't cite my sources on things because I can't copy and paste links half the time!
-Taylor
... The fact that Apple later moved the install into an "optional" section at least shows that they made a move in the right direction.
Yes, I didn't mean to say it was automatic, you had to click the "ok" button, but when they call it an update even though its not installed, that's just as sleazy as an auto-install.
Why would you even bother trying to show them in a positive light after something like that? It was shitty, and they made it slightly less shitty after people complained. That's like raping you for a while, and then deciding to put on a condom to make it better. "A move in the right direction" doesn't mean shit when you're already so far off from the "right" direction.
I know the original article was about auto-installs, and I may have accidentally lumped this in with that, but my point was that people need to stop doing shady things to install stuff on your computer - whether completely automated, or just deceptive. Its my computer and I'm sick of having to be vigilant all the time. Or actually, I don't mind being vigilant because its easy for me, (but I'd still rather not have to) but I'm sick of these people making crap that overloads my mom's computer. I know you can't stop spammers and bad people, but Skype and McAfee and Apple aren't *supposed* to act like spammers and bad people! You should be able to trust companies like that to not screw up your machine. I mean McAfee is an *antivirus* company! They're supposed to fight malware, not create it!
No, that's Old Spice.
I really wish there were some way to make that illegal without just causing some big legal shithole.
I don't think there's any need to get the police involved. Why is the Mozilla configuration writable to the Skype installer? That's a huge security hole. Fix that first.
Yeah, I don't really want it to be illegal, because laws like that are just going to make things worse, I just know that this kind of thing isn't likely to go away any other way (and it may not be that likely even if it was illegal).
I agree and while I know it doesn't really do anything to fix it, every time I have to upgrade iTunes or anything that requires the Apple installer, I take a screenshot of the installer with Safari checked and send an email to support@apple.com with a bug report.
I would invite everyone who deals with the apple installer to do this. Maybe one person can't change their mind but if they had to deal with a few thousand emails a week pointing out this problem, maybe someone might listen.
Actually, when this came up I mentioned it to my friend that works at Apple. I asked who would make a shitty decision like that, and he said "From the top." "Jobs?" I asked. "Yup." This is the same friend who currently has a Verizon iPhone 4, and who has had it "for a while now". Sadly, he's tight-lipped on everything else, but I really don't buy into the Apple hype anymore anyway.
So, as anecdotal as that may be, it looks like the decision was from Jobs, and he's a guy who's not going to care about some whining Windows users.
-Taylor
We should just make a foundation that goes around and sues companies that make auto installing toolbars, maybe hire some layers to pull them through the mud, using despicable legal tricks to stall the case and cost them money.
Small claims court cases submitted out of town or to a minor employee so when they ignore it you autowin.
Yeah, that's not that bad of an idea. I hate that kind of shit, but that's kind of what the companies are asking for when they ignore user rights. They go sleezy, we go sleezy. So much nowadays, people will walk all over you unless some lawyer scares them away from it.
-Taylor
Apple installing safari automatically (but apple is already evil so that wasn't too much of a surprise).
Apple never automatically installed Safari on Windows machines. When you use Apple's updater it will have Safari checked as an additional, optional install but you can uncheck that and Safari won't be installed. It's not hidden or automatic, the user can check or uncheck the box as they desire.
You are wrong, sorry:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9901006-7.html
When they first introduced the tactic, it was not listed under "optional installs", but right alongside iTunes under "updates" or whatever, so it looked like an update to something you already had. For years, I just clicked "yes" to the apple updater, because it was always just there to update software I had (iTunes). And then one day, it said Safari needed an update, even though I didn't have it installed. Well, *I* noticed this, but plenty of other people didn't.
After a little while, they moved it from "updates" to "additional installs" or whatever, but it was still checked by default. People had to pay attention, and normally with software updaters, you just say yes - its an "update".
You build a certain level of trust with a user that your "updater" will only be used for updates, and it is an abuse of that trust to use it for installing new software without making it extremely clear that something has changed (like not having it checked by default, or having a prompt that is different from the usual software's behavior).
You may say it would be my fault for getting duped, but what about my mom? She doesn't have a lot of money, so her computer is a few years old. She's also not very computer savvy, so she falls victim to every one of these things, and her computer is constantly loaded up with extra junk. All she wants to do is log onto facebook to message her children, and her computer is so slow she can't really do that anymore.
The bottom line is:
*When someone like Apple tricks a user into installing new software, they're cheating old ladies out of communication with their loved ones just to pump up their install base.*
That is true sleezeball move.
What is considered spam anyway?
I mean, I'm sure I'd like to have an "expert" perform my "sexchange" if I want one, but I was just looking for help solving a programming bug.
I also appreciate that some sites try to help me with my searching, but I'd rather have them provide answers instead of giving yet more search results.
Yeah, when you could customize searches, I always removed "experts exchange" results from my searches, but I don't think google got the hint. They still come up all the f'ing time, and I don't think you can customize searches anymore. Never mattered anyway.
-Taylor
" according to the evaluation metrics that we’ve refined over more than a decade, Google’s search quality is better than it has ever been in terms of relevance, freshness and comprehensiveness. "
And thus begins the downfall of Google. Once you start drinking your own lemonade and stop listening to the people who use your product, you're on a greased downhill slope.
That's not lemonade.
Anything that auto-installs needs to go to hell and burn.
Most recent example: My boss finally starts using Chrome instead of IE. Shortly after he starts using it, he complains that Gmail won't load - it gets stuck in a reloading loop. I look it up and NO ONE seems to know what is happening. Clearing the cache - all that - nothing works. A couple weeks later, it happens to me, and I immediately notice something new - a new extension has been installed, a big green "M" in the upper right hand side. McAfee decided I needed their "safe browsing extension" (something I NEVER want), and the safe browsing extension seems to cause the gmail reload loop. I uninstalled it (just because I didn't want it) and immediately noticed that the gmail problem was resolved.
Browser makers (well, google, and maybe mozilla) work really hard to make a kick ass, stable program, and then any jackass with some untested crap can auto-install whatever they want and bring it down. Skype, McAffee, these are supposed to be mature companies (well, some people hate McAfee, but whatever) yet they still pull BS shit (yes, two shits) like auto-installing something that isn't even stable. Or Apple installing safari automatically (but apple is already evil so that wasn't too much of a surprise).
I really wish there were some way to make that illegal without just causing some big legal shithole. Really I just wish there was some code of honor that good software vendors would agree too - autoinstalling being something to avoid (or have a box that says "Do you want to install the Skype shitty toolbar" *making sure* to have a "don't ask me again" checkbox).
This isn't 2003 and I don't want every toolbar you came up with installed on my machine!
-Taylor
What about sending one of these to Mars with a nuclear reactor instead of sunlight for the heat source, and using it to make rocket fuel for a return vehicle?
Or is this basically the same thing that Robert Zubrin proposed 15 years ago?
-Taylor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerium
http://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/58.html
India, Brazil, USA, Sweden.
It's the most abundant of rare earth metals, and is low to moderate toxicity.
So you're saying it's a common rare earth metal? :)
-Taylor
What does stronger than steel actually mean? A spider web is stronger than steel, but I walk through them all the time. A diamond is stronger than steel, but I can hit it with a hammer and it smashes. Stronger than steel sounds good, but just like foods that say they are all natural, doesn't mean anything.
Umm, what? Strength is usually "Tensile Strength", which is expressed in relation to the cross sectional area. Spider webs are extremely thin, so they're not that strong. I think just about everyone knows that smaller thinner things are weaker. That's why we can crumble aluminum foil in our hands, but Audi can still make car frames out of aluminum, or why bridges are made of steel but I can bend a paper-clip with my fingers...
What world do you live in where it isn't perfectly obvious why something that is extremely thin, even if made from a strong material, would be weak?
-Taylor
No.
You can only manage that kind of effort temporarily. Soon your work goes into the shitter, despite feeling that you're getting more done. And you need an equivalently long recovery period just to get back on track afterward.
Being asked to do it for an indeterminate amount of time isn't a good sign.
So what you're saying is, every so often he can push them until they nearly break, and then back off? ;)
-Taylor