1859 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: I don't understand the thinking
Only for the Nexus 4 and 5. I got my Galaxy Nexus because it was a high spec phone; it was also one of the first big-screen (by 2011 standards) phones.
I think Google's ultimate care is having as many people as possible running Android (preferably with Google services).
The problem of "competing with other Android manufacturers flagship" surely applied more to the decent spec but low cost Nexus devices? Now you've got people saying that the Nexus no longer has much of a price advantage, so they'll consider a Note 4, S5, etc; or stick with their Nexus 5.
The Galaxy Nexus (and presumably Nexus S) was high cost too - the low cost strategy was only introduced with the Nexus 4.
It's a fair point that although cheaper than say the Note 4, the Nexus 6 is still more than the flagship S5.
It's a shame that Google seem to have abandoned the low cost strategy (though the Nexus 5 isn't being discontinued, unlike annoyingly the excellent Nexus 7), but I can see why they want to put out a high end device - Nexus devices were originally meant to be the showcase for Android, after all, not budget choices. Indeed, part of the fear in the early Android days was manufacturers racing to the bottom, so Google wanted their own premium flagship. I don't mind paying extra if it means that the Nexus finally has a reasonable camera.
Also there are devices from Motorola that are low cost, and come with virtually stock Android and fast updates (Android 5 reportedly rolling out on Motorola before the Nexus!)
I get the impression that Google put out a low cost Nexus 4 to change the way that people bought phones - buying it outright unlocked rather than from the carrier. But whilst the Nexus 4 was far more successful than previous Nexuses, it seems that most people are still buying non-Nexuses on contracts. Sadly marketing, distribution and "ooh it's free if I pay monthly" won out over a great device at a good price that's not advertised or distributed very well.
Re: So Nexus 6 still 32-bit
There are potential technical advantages, but if Google can achieve the same end user experience with a 32-bit CPU, it doesn't really matter to the end user.
"Different people have different needs."
Well yes, exactly, that's why a 64GB or more options would be nice. No one's saying they should scrap the smaller options. (Though I'm thankful that at least we get a 64GB Nexus 6 - it now becomes a viable option for my next phone, which I'd like to store my music on.)
I don't what ipad users do, but one of the most obvious uses for a tablet is for playing videos - there's a reason why in the 2000s, tablets were instead often called "media players". At home, I have a 42" media player for watching videos - a tablet's strength is its portability.
Re: @AC I suspect Google will fail
No one cares about what Apple dreams of. Unless you're an employee or shareholder. As a consumer, I care about the things that the AC above listed.
And it was the OP who claimed Google would fail. Google *do* care about market share - unlike Apple who by your own admission only care about profit margins, Google care about getting as many people accessing the Internet as possible (since they make money through ads), with the side-benefit of having more people using Google services. They are not failing.
Re: I think Murdoch would have to be a Microsoft guy
Yet the number of iphone users is barely any more - both are tiny compared to Android.
Glad to see the old "joke" still going strong - How do you tell someone has an Apple feature phone? They tell you.
Re: Rings familiar...
So in other words, it's not possible since most phones aren't easily rooted.
Anyhow, the issue is with what the licence terms are, not whether you can install AOSP or a custom ROM. It's not _exactly_ the same case as with MS, but there are similarities - it's about using a monopoly position in one market to gain unfair competition in other markets.
Re: Doesn't matter if the features have been available for years...
The answer is clearly Samsung (or whatever make of phone it is). If Samsung want to claim the fault came from elsewhere, it's up to them to sue them in turn.
The fact that Samsung use Android and build their own OS on it makes this point even more clear, so it's not like building a PC and then installing Windows on it.
Apple don't make everything inside their devices, you could make the same claim if there are any problems that result from a hardware fault (be it NFC, or anything else). The safe place for my money is not with Apple - if I want contactless payments, I can already do it with my card, no need to wave an Apple logo around.
And you've also indirectly criticised all Open Source - "ooh, you don't want to use Open Source if your products - otherwise the users won't know who to blame if something goes wrong".
Re: Doesn't matter if the features have been available for years...
Ah yes, just like everyone video calls now rather than making normal phone calls. And everyone uses a fingerprint scanner.
If you're going to counter "But Apple do it better", you forgot to include details of how it's better, rather than just assuming it to be so. Otherwise, we can make that argument for anything. Oh, it doesn't matter that Apple were first with multitouch, I'm sure the Android implementation is much better. And oh look, far more people are using Android to iphone, especially compared to 2007 iphone sales, so it must be true! And I'm sure that the next Nexus will have much better NFC than what you assume the iphone 6 has.
True, the fact that Nexus 4 had NFC for years isn't really that important, but you're missing the point - it's Apple who are touting this as some great feature, so it's fair game to point out that this is a standard feature on other platforms.
Re: OS vs apps: Paint
Given the price of iphones, it's odd to claim credit based on it being cheaper...
The original iphone wasn't a smartphone (couldn't do apps) other than the "it's marketed as a smartphone" definition, it did however do Internet access as was standard on all phones by the 2000s. If networks unfairly gave iphone users cheaper data plans, then that's something to criticise.
"hugely successful" - 8 million or so isn't bad for a first release, but it's way down the list on best selling phones. For comparison, the 2009 Nokia 5230, the best selling smartphone of all time, sold 150 million. Also Apple put all their weight behind one phone - companies like Nokia and Samsung vastly outsold them (and still do outsell them, though Samsung overtook Nokia).
GUIs are a matter of preference, I don't find anything "slick" about it - you touch an icon, it does something, nothing new. Multitouch can be useful, but no good for one-handed use (amusingly the standard argument iphone users make against Android - well, until iphone 6 that is). That leaves us with minor stuff like scroll bounceback (which I always found annoying). Handwriting recognition was just one of many things that other people were looking at and supporting, as indeed they still do (Galaxy Note, and Windows devices). Various companies have introduced swipe-based UIs since then, this wasn't all Apple, and I'm not really a fan of those actions anyway.
Of course, I'm sure the Apple fans will pick up all sorts of minor reasons about what was special, because we constantly have to hear about this 7 years later. I'll thank Apple when I hear them thanking the many innovations they take for granted that came first from other companies, both before and after.
Re: How exactly is that wrong?
Oh yes, it's the fault of the networks - I don't think anyone's saying otherwise. I'm not convinced that Apple are behaving any different in terms of negotiation though - the networks didn't stop being rubbish just because Apple came along. The networks do improve, but slowly and with reluctance (e.g., at long last we're starting to see better deals for roaming).
Re: Apple is the reason some stuff happens
Though you compare "Fandroids" to "the Behmoth that is called Apple" - last time I checked, there were companies behind this Android thing and all those phones. OTOH, the networks could say "Efff off you iphone zealots".
How is it wrong?
Because it means the majority of users have to wait years for Apple to implement a feature, before it's supported.
Because it means that 3rd party companies are supporting the minority of iphone users in terms of which features are supported, which both is not useful for most users, and anti-competitive.
Indeed, the fact that everyone gains when a new feature is supported, is all the more reason why 3rd parties should support a new feature _whoever_ introduces it, not just when Apple does.
Re: Don't forget Microsoft
I have the 32GB Transformer Book which has the same "problem" - but given that it (and the Surface RT) is priced at or less than 16GB models of various IOS and Android 10" tablets, it doesn't seem unreasonable. At least they have upped the minimum memory available, and put it out at the base price. And the microSD that adds up to 128GB. The biggest problem with Samsung phones (with the exception of the Note) is that it's often hard to find anything other than the 16GB model available - not sure if that's the fault of Samsung or the carriers.
People can delete the U2 etc music, can't they? If so, it's not an issue of space anyway, though I would consider it commercial spam (if someone wants music free, they can get it the same way everyone else gets it for free...) If they can't delete it, that's just plain ridiculous anyway.
Re: unlike Android’s comparatively fractured ecosystem
The great thing about ios is there's only one device to develop for: iphone. And ipad.
The great thing about ios is there's only two devices to develop for: iphone and ipad. And ipad mini. Three devices! iphone, ipad, ipad mini, iphone plus, and the installed user base of older smaller iphones that still need supporting, all with a variety of different screen resolutions and aspect ratios, and a fanatical devotion to the pope.
(I'll come in again.)
The difference is, we don't have hoards of Google fans trying to claim Chromecast is a new invention, or "popularised" anything, or brought it to the mainstream, or revolutionised anything, yet with Apple fans we have to hear them endlessly claiming this, even when the sales figures don't actually support the statement.
The excitement is that Chromecast is really cheap, I don't see ridiculous claims being made about it (though it would be reasonable to say the hype is a bit unfair, given there are other cheaper alternatives like NowTV).
It's not about specs with Apple, until it is - remember the "PPI" obsession? For user experience, how well does Airplay support playing to my LG TV? My user experience with itunes was terrible, as well as trying to get video on an ipod play through someone else's computer.
"Apple have seldom been the pioneers of new technology, but they have a very successful history of picking up new technology just when they are ready to move with it and making a big success out of it. Both the iPad and the iPhone are examples of this"
Please check Apple's actual sales in 2007-2008, compared to other platforms/companies.
Symbian dominated until 2011, and the huge growth of smartphone sales came almost all from Android.
Just like everyone now talks to their phones and makes video calls all the time thanks to Apple... Of course, it may well be that some places only introduce NFC now that the minority of Apple users can use it - but I'm not sure that's something to be thankful for, on the contrary, we should be asking why they aren't already supporting the majority of Android users, and why we have to wait years if things are only supported when Apple get round to it.
"They don't always invent the steam engines, but they're great at knowing when it's Steam Engine time."
Steam Engine time simply gets defined as whenever Apple do it, whether it's early, late, or sometime in between. It's the bullseye Apple fallacy - draw a ring round whenever Apple released something, and say "Look, that was the defining point!", never mind what actually happened at the time.
"At least I sincerely hope they don't have some trick up their sleeve to close the market!"
I can see it now - "Pay with NFC!" Let me just pay with my iphone - oh wait, I can't, because like the rest of the world I use Android.
Re: Why binary compatibility?
Typing "make" requires the source, so the real issue is closed source software. Make won't help you with a closed source binary package.
Windows does support ARM now - as indeed, Windows NT supported other architectures back in the days you talk about. But MS themselves are hobbled by the same desire for x86 compatibility from users, lack of desire to support multiple architectures if they can get away with it from companies, and a lack of Open Source.
Re: Currency fluctuations
$50K of Bitcoin is $50K of Bitcoin - it makes no difference whether it a year's time, a Bitcoin is worth $1million or 1p.
It would only matter if you made the choice to spend $50K rather than keeping it invested in Bitcoin, but then that would still be true whether you paid in Dollars or Bitcoin - if I buy a new Dell in Dollars, that's still money I could have invested in Bitcoin. If someone pays in Bitcoin, they can still buy more Bitcoin to replace it.
Re: Not so bad news.
I agree - Facebook is a perfect example something that's bound to be popular on mobile phones: something that people check all day, most easily be done with a phone that they have on them all the time, and more likely to be something to check when you're not at home with plenty of other things to do. Even for people who work in offices, checking on a phone has privacy advantages over using the work computer, even if it's less ideal. And people never seem to type more than two sentences at a time (if they type at all - so much of the status updates are just automated rubbish), so you can get away with no proper keyboard.
I'm not sure anyone predicts some sudden resurgences among laptop/desktop computers anyway (why would there suddenly be), rather that some (myself included) are skeptical that everyone's going to throw them all away to only use mobile phones/tablets. It's rather telling that PC usage is still ahead, despite mobile devices having been mainstream and low cost for years.
(Does my best-selling Asus Transformer Book count as a "PC" or a "mobile device, anyway? It's both.)
Re: It is an exclusive for a while at least
"If Samsung or whoever wanted to do this, it would take them at least a couple years to do so"
The problem here is the assumption that they're all starting from scratch, when there have been continual developments of increasing the strength of screens. I don't care about marketing buzzwords like "billion dollars", "exclusive deal", "special factory", "years of planning, research and building to make this happen" - that's what _all_ technology companies are doing.
As always, we only get a press-release masquerading as news when it's Apple, even when they're just playing catch-up.
Re: A matter of scale
And this is why price increases for Bitcoin are a good thing. Note the number of Bitcoin is not what measures the size of the currency, rather it's market cap (number times value of 1 Bitcoin). Though for Bill Gates to buy all of them, that would itself cause the price to rocket (especially if people knew that Bill Gates was on a mission to buy all of them). But yes, a bigger market cap means it's harder for anyone to influence the price.
"You can't base your long-term wealth on an asset who's value can drop like a rock from one year to the next."
Oh, good thing that no one's suggesting that today.
Your last paragraph is a straw man, who says you should bet your house, salary and pension on it? I wouldn't trust those things with Paypal, or bet them all on high risk investments. That doesn't mean that those things are of no use at all.
Re: I'm not surprised
What "much greater" risks are there for someone using it to transfer money, e.g., between countries, or in countries where banks don't offer easy transfer like in the UK? (The US's idea of 21st century banking is that you can use your phone to scan a cheque...)
Essentially this is where Paypal got popular - the extra risk of an unregulated company was evidently outweighed by the reduced transfer fees or hassle. It's not clear to me why say a company that uses Bitpay to receive payments is a much greater risk?
Maybe the European Banking Authority should warn people off Paypal...
"It's a bubble speculation which has proved of some ongoing value to some cyber-criminals, drug dealers, botnet operators and digital blackmailers."
We've been hearing "it's a bubble" since the value was $10 - still waiting for the crash. Any form of money has black market uses.
"Yet Microsoft was wrong to lump PC users in with device users, as it turned out neither customers nor developers wanted Metro on their PC – they hated it. Apple was smarter: consistency only across the phone and tablet with iOS while keeping the Mac operating system out of the smart design stable."
I'm so glad that one journalist can speak for every single person. Probably typing that from behind a light-up Apple logo.
Some people like it, some people don't. Just like every time there's a new version of Windows. Most people who were bothered were more annoyed by loss/change of the start menu than anything to do with design consistency. But it's annoying to hear this history revisionism where people speak for all Windows users, or for Apple fans to take that criticism as somehow a win for Apple - it doesn't mean that people like Apple OS X better (which doesn't have a start menu, and last time I looked launched things by clicking on icons too).
Why is it always right to make tablets like phones, and not laptops? For a 7" tablet, sure, but my 10" Asus Transformer Book is far closer to being a laptop (because in fact, it _is_ a laptop, but converts to a tablet), and it's nice running a full OS on it rather than being a giant phone.
The area where Google have chosen to be more like MS than Apple is not "design", but the possible introduction of touchscreens, which we've already seen with the Pixel Chromebook, and would seem more natural when they start enabling some Android applications on Chromebooks. (Though Asus were way ahead, with their Android Transformers.) I'm sure that we'll continue to hear though that touchscreens are evil, except on a device on the same sized that begins with an "i", then it becomes revolutionary and we should all throw away our keyboards to use one.
Re: This is not a validation of Microsoft's Metro strategy
"(a proper Start menu is finally coming back in the next update, I hear)"
That's great for people who prefer the Windows 7 start menu (not "proper" - people just have different preferences, and options are nice). But what does that have to do with touch? I can click icons with a mouse, or use with touch. MS changed the start menu significantly, but it's a myth that it's forcing people to use touch (otherwise how would people click the icons on the OS X dock without a touchscreen).
Re: For all the metro haters
The start menu is significantly different, and plenty of people prefer the old one to the new version. But although a side-benefit was them making a consistent interface, imo it still works as a UI in its own right. I like the new Windows start menu ("screen") on a non-touch laptop - now I have the fullscreen being made use of, rather than a postage stamp sized window in the corner. Remember, way back in Windows 95, the point of the start menu was to cascade, so that submenus opened, and took up the full screen. Without XP or Vista (I forget which), they made it remain small, stuck in the corner, with the submenus opening in the same space.
In fact, I'd probably like this less on a Windows Phone, because you don't have the screen size to make use of it, so can only fit a few tiles. There it's better to have something that allows hierarchical menus, like you can with the Android homescreen (well, one level of hierarchy anyway) (and was the case with Symbian and feature phones years before that). But then again, I haven't tried it, and it's probably what I'm used to :)
"It also might seriously piss off long term Android users who, if they wanted WinPho would have bought WinPho."
Indeed, I think this is the key - people get annoyed with change. If Windows 8 had thrust the OS X UI onto people, it wouldn't be (as much as many journalists seem to think) "Oh yes, this is much better", but even more of an uproar - either because they don't like change, or if they wanted OS X they would have bought it. Indeed OS X launches things by clicking on icons, that doesn't mean it was made for touchscreens, but would still annoy those who wondered where their start menu had gone.
I think MS should have done more to keep in options to keep things somewhat the way they were (similar to how XP could switch back to 2000s menu), but whether a particular UI is good or bad, or works better on a phone or laptop or not, comes down to preference. Anyhow, any half-decent OS lets you change things, and it's a 5 minute job to put the start menu back anyway for those who prefer.
Re: The only thing worse than not getting what you want.
I don't think anyone has a contradictory viewpoint, other than the straw man you made up. Different people have different views - among those using Bitcoin, some may want it to be some underground tax-evading thing, but plenty of others want it to be legitimate, including being happy to pay taxes on it.
And there's nothing special about being "money" - for example in the UK, taxes like capital gains cover profits made from any investment whether or not it's classed as "money", so why would we think Bitcoin be exempt from that?
Re: So coin mining is a losing game, then ?
But if you're willing to speculate, then you could have just spent the money you would have on the electricity on Bitcoin directly. So if you instead spent that $800 on Bitcoin, you'd have 1.4 bitcoin, and would make even more money if it goes up in future. Though I take the point that some people find dealing with exchanges a hassle, and yes someone who mines at a loss today may still be better off in future than someone who doesn't mine or buy at all.
Re: Next step?
No crapware on my Nexus.
One of the downsides of fine control over permissions is that you get clueless users who think an app doesn't need a permission, but then are first in line to vote it 1 star because "it doesn't work right". There are loads of apps out there, so one should always vote by dropping apps with stupid permissions. (Not that I'm saying it can't be improved.)
Re: Next step?
Or, you could just stop installing rubbish - never had any trouble with the free MS Security Essentials, or Windows Defender which is now installed as standard.
The value of something is not a feature that can be set or controlled by the developers - that goes for anything, money or otherwise. I don't see how a $POWER could help.
Higher value is actually what's required here - larger market cap, then large transactions have a smaller effect of the market.
Re: cheap at twice the price
Great for you and the other three users. Amigas aren't affected either.
With 90+% market share, it's the same thing.
I don't see people mention specifically Windows when they release other kinds of software - it's just "PC"; same with mobile software, should they list the operating systems if it turns out they don't support Windows Phone?
But no, don't let that stop with your tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory.
Re: Clicking links ...
I can see a QR code before I use it. I don't see how reading the phone number in digits rather than seeing it as an image has anything to do with whether it will blow up my phone.
Re: Ha! Busted!
I agree that it's old programs that are the biggest faults - the problem is that on a PC/laptop OS, there's far more legacy to deal with, as well as a far greater range of APIs that developers can use.
There are Windows 10-11" high-resolution laptops appearing, and the reports suggest that Windows and any half-decent program generally does okay, and this should be even less of an issue at 14".
Another issue I think though is expectations of GPU performance. On a tablet OS, people are impressed when you run Angry Birds or port a 10 year old 3D game. As soon as you have an x86 Windows machine, people are trying to run the latest AAA games on it. So if you don't have a great GPU, there is some argument for having a lower resolution.
The main annoyance of low resolution on laptops is if it limits how much stuff you can fit on. If it gets to the point where users are having to increase the DPI, the extra resolution is mostly pointless anyway - theoretically it's better quality, but not if you don't have the GPU power to drive games, and I wonder how many people are watching Blu-Ray quality movies on their high resolution tablets (given how limited they are in storage space, and even a low quality movie will blow through most people's monthly mobile data allowance).
I agree - and the level of trust that people require depends on the situation. If you want something to prevent a thief getting at your data, I'd say Bitlocker is good enough - sure, maybe the possibility of NSA backdoors is greater in Bitlocker than Truecrypt, and maybe you're willing to trust the shared source of Truecrypt even though that isn't a guarantee and the audit hasn't completed yet, but does that stop it doing the job? Similarly if you just want to keep information private from friends/family/anyone who might find a USB key you dropped.
If you absolutely need something to be secure, then I wouldn't trust Bitlocker _or_ Truecrypt on its own. Since there's no guarantee of being free of malware or backdoors on or in the OS, relying on Truecrypt isn't sufficient - a keylogger can trivially grab your passkey, and once a volume is decrypted, it's fair game for anything on the system to grab it. The answer here is to use totally secure methods - for example, for Bitcoin I use cold storage, such that my password has only ever been entered on a freshly installed OS where the machine was never connected to the Internet.
Admittedly, Linux and Truecrypt have an advantage, but more that it's easier to stick them on a Live CD to boot them as a fresh install - with Windows you'd presumably have licensing issues, and I'm not sure it's possible to run without installing to disk. But it's not because "Oh noes MS is evil and insecure and have backdoors". (And I do use Truecrypt as it happens, but I don't think that that alone is sufficient for total security.)
Re: Please continue truecrypt
Interesting article at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jameslyne/2014/05/29/open-source-crypto-truecrypt-disappears-with-suspicious-cloud-of-mystery/ argues some advantages of it being part of the OS: "I worked close to the development team that maintained their pre-boot environment, shims and other mechanisms for hooking in to the OS. I can say first hand that this is an expensive, difficult and cumbersome thing to do whereas for Microsoft which owns the OS and the relationship it is a much easier task. Trying to “out Microsoft Microsoft” at hardware support, performance and compatibility is a tough gig and there are a wealth of new features in modern hardware and software that offer major trust enhancements that just ‘work’ with Bitlocker (TPM, UEFI, SecureBoot, Windows 8.1 etc). This is precisely why Sophos made the move to start managing BitLocker and other inbuilt encryption technologies like FileVault on Mac OS X rather than focusing on maintaining our own environment."
I agree there are advantages to having encryption be cross-platform, but thought that was interesting nonetheless. Also for the people claiming backdoors in bitlocker, I hope they're running Linux with Open Source drivers on an openly-designed CPU and hardware, to go along with their tin foil hats.
Not necessarily - laws like data protection would surely cover both a database with your name/photo, and the photos taken by the machine.
Given many Governments track record on creating new laws in response to technology, the last thing I want them to do is do it hastily. Given your fears about vested interests, hastily-passed new laws may not be in our favour.
Wait a minute - we've had a whole load of comments above, highly voted up, arguing as if it was clear as mud, that men are _biologically_ more predisposed to want to work for IT companies.
Yet here you are pointing out that Google in India has a higher proportion of women. So wait, are the rules about biology different in India then?
Presumably your point is that it's not Google at fault, but an issue with the societies - which is a fair point and one I'd agree with, but then, that's still an argument that there are social differences at fault, rather than it being purely biological differences as everyone above is insisting.
(And logically, another possible option is that it's only a problem with Google in some countries - Google is not a single entity, and the people who make up "Google" in different countries will be different. It could be that some parts of Google have issues, and not others. But yes, I suspect the issues are not primarily due to Google, but due to wider issues.)
Re: Feminists: they are idiots and to blame!
"and saying that the females generally have a different *average* psychological disposition."
But can you show that a different average psychological disposition explains away the 80% male domination in an IT company, without relying on social differences?
Of course there are trivially biological differences, but it doesn't follow that any difference must be due to biological differences. Different species doesn't even make scientific sense.
And why do the comments focus on the issue of gender? Are you going to say that there are biological differences to races too?
That's a straw man - no one's saying that every company must have exactly equal proportions.
There is surely a medium between "every computer company being dominated by men" and "every computer company must have exactly 50%".
Not that I necessarily blame companies, I suspect a lot of the problems start early, just look at any toy shop and see what boys are encouraged to play with versus girls - but it is still good to keep track of these statistics.
And whilst there are biological differences, I don't think there's evidence to say that men are more biological predisposed to computer jobs, certainly not to the extent to explain the differences you see. It's hard to see what the evolutionary reason for this would be, also consider how many early programmers were women. I hope you have references for this "simple psychological fact"?
"When 50% of people choosing and completing IT courses at universities are female (without imposing artificial gender quotas and turning men away simply because they are men), only then do you have the right to whine if the employment figures don't match the graduation rates."
You're accusing people of being politically correct, but _you're_ the one saying people don't even have a right to "whine"?
I think all this says is that it's not the fault of the companies - but it's still reasonable to then ask why we then have the inbalance in education.
"Your comment reminds me of one of those meme images I saw recently, which had a picture of a stereotypically feminist-looking woman and was captioned something like this:"
Your comment reminds me of a straw man argument that's completely irrelevant to the topic. Did the OP major in gender studies? If you're suggesting that most men in IT like it being male dominated - well, I don't know if it's true, but I hope not. I'd rather it not be one of those sad male-only morris dancing clubs.
Re: This is ridiculous
"(I mean... switch to Bitlocker? That's not even a good troll.)"
Okay, I'll bite - what are the problems?
Truecrypt is cross-platform, and also available on all versions of Windows. But for someone where this isn't an issue, what is it about Bitlocker that makes this laughable?
On the flipside, if it's news, it means it's not common, so what you say may well be true after all.
Some would have us believe downloading pirated binaries is a sure way to get viruses - reading this news story makes it seem more a case of one single incident being newsworthy, and even this has been discovered and now removed from most sites.
"by making an ISO image of the disk"
...which at the time would still have been piracy.
Re: Millenium Bug
Quite. What happened as that people said there were problems. Effort was then spent fixing the problems. Problems were therefore largely fixed.
What the media did in the meantime was scaremonger that it was going to be the end of the industrial world, blaming the IT industry, and then when nothing happened, blamed the IT industry again for having spent money fixing supposedly non-existent problems.
Same problem happens with vaccination: An epidemic appears. Media scaremonger that everyone's going to die. Vaccination program to tackle the actual epidemic takes place. Few people die. Media then blame the medical industry and claim it was all a waste of money...
So here with have The Reg telling us, that this time, it's real. When the problems are fixed, I look forward to The Reg saying how it was all scaremongering from the IT industry.
Re: 2,000 thumbs down can't be wrong
Maybe, but I don't know anyone who's paying money for Microsoft Security Essentials (it's free).
Re: While a lot of this sounds bad from a competition perspective.....
To be fair, although vanilla Android is nice, Samsung's UI seems fine too, and it's as much a matter of opinion or what you're used to. Vanilla Android does lack a lot of things (e.g., video calling, didn't have a notepad/text editor for years) which although you can easily get an application for, I can see manufacturers wanting to add their own.
Let's not forget things like Google trying to get rid of SD cards - some customisations are definitely a good thing. (A shame - the idea of "Silver" sounds promising to me, but if they're all lacking sd cards with too small internal storage, I'm not interested.)
It does mean the releases lag core Android, but does this mean people wait longer for any given feature? A Touchwiz user has to wait longer to get a new feature added to core Android, but a Nexus user may have to wait longer for a new feature that Samsung add as standard.
Samsung have a lot more phones to test than Google when it comes to updates - but if Google switch to a model where there are lots of devices under the "Silver" brand, they've then got to test all of those devices (Nexus users may be happy being beta testers for the latest Android version, but this won't work so well on a wider set of consumers...)
It's annoying when network operators block updates of phones. Arguably they shouldn't have that control at all, though given that buggy updates can cause havoc for *other* users, as happened when an iphone update was pushed out, I can see their point. Ideally people should vote with their wallets - if my network didn't allow updates through, I'd go elsewhere.
Re: re "unless you can find a better use for them"
You think there is a sound case for banning anything that uses energy, if someone (who?) deems it not worthy?
There's a long list of things on that list, long before we get to virtual currencies. ("But this ATM requires electricity to run! How environmentally unfriendly!")
Re: re "unless you can find a better use for them"
Yes whining on the Internet is such a better use of electricity.
This is no better than the people who think you save the planet by switching off the lights for an hour. Yes, the Bitcoin network has a cost, but unless you can show this is significantly worse than a equivalent method (banks, Paypal etc), this is not a fair argument, and falls under "I don't like this, therefore no one else should".
I'd have more respect if you were a green person criticising all kinds of energy use, but you're not - you're someone who thinks that as long as you turn off the lights for an hour, or criticise the use of things that you're not interested in, that makes you green even though you happily use energy-guzzling computers the rest of the time.
Re: Bitcoin - the new Second Life
Try explaining public key encryption to your grandmother (or grandfather). I guess that means no one will ever buy anything on the Internet?
Re: Bitcoin is strongly deflationary
Well, that's an argument against using Bitcoin as one's national currency.
But usages such as Internet and international transactions still remain. Currently Paypal is largely used for this, but I don't see people criticising Paypal by considering what the economy would look like if everything (wages, taxes, etc) was done using and controlled by Paypal.
- HALF A BILLION TERRORISTS: WhatsApp encrypts ALL its worldwide jabber
- HUMAN DNA 'will be FOUND ON MOON' – rocking boffin Brian Cox
- Bang! You're dead. Who gets your email, iTunes and Facebook?
- YOU are the threat: True confessions of real-life sysadmins
- Blackpool hotel 'fines' couple £100 for crap TripAdvisor review