Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I wonder ... (Score 1) 172

As I understand it, the answer is "Yes."

What they're going for is to make the device useless. They can already make the phone unable to use particular towers or the whole network--essentially turning your iPhone into an iPod touch. But as I understand it--and I may be wrong--the idea of bricking the phone is that it will essentially make everything on the phone inaccessible.

Comment: Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score 1) 172

In 2014 all a gov with a tame telco has to do is find your phone trying to upload. The unique video never gets out anymore. The citizen journalist is swept up and phone lost.

Okay, fair enough, I'll play into your fantasy.

Now, what's stopping the eeeevil people from doing that now? All they'd have to do is have software that says IMEI 07 345927 087947 7 can't talk to this cell tower. They can do that now. Your phone's IMEI number is the same, even if you switch SIMs, so that's no help.

Comment: Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score 5, Insightful) 172

They would, however, be able to keep the story about what's happening in Ferguson, MO (for example) from ever trending on Twitter, simply by killing every phone talking to a particular tower.

Or by shutting down the tower or by saying, "Phone number (whatever) cannot communicate with this tower."

And yet, somehow they haven't done this.

Comment: Re:Just red tape? (Score 1) 140

by R3d M3rcury (#47687555) Attached to: Delays For SC Nuclear Plant Put Pressure On the Industry

Actually, I was just chuckling over the fact that "50,000 people a year die from second hand smoke" and "50,000 people a year die from coal power plant emissions" and 50,000 people a year die from prolonged seizures and 50,000 people a year die from alcohol poisoning.

Handy that these happen in blocks of 50,000.

Comment: Re:Two things.... (Score 1) 249

by R3d M3rcury (#47674135) Attached to: Apple's App Store Needs a Radical Revamp; How Would You Go About It?

Actually, I would adjust this slightly.

First, as Apple, I would take a weed whacker to the store and remove huge swaths of duplicate applications. I'd pick three to five apps for a particular category, based on the product and the developers' fealty to Apple. Apple doesn't want developers just dumping applications. Apple wants their customers to have a support mechanism for apps, they want the developers to quickly support iOS updates, etc. So the idea is that having your iOS App in Apple's App Store is a badge of honor for all of the various Apple users out there. Apple will also assist with marketing.

What about everything else?

Second, introduce side-loading. Apple might think your app sucks, but you believe in it. So you can sign a deal with a different non-Apple-labeled store. Or you can distribute it yourself. You'd still have to sign the application with a certificate from Apple creating, in theory, a paper trail if something goes wrong. Users might also get the appropriate warnings ("You're running an app from the Internet that could trash your phone, eat your children, and destroy the universe. Are you really really sure you want to do something so dangerous?") to try to...uh..."warn" them of the potential issues.

So, yes, you can sell your strip poker game, fart box, smuggle illegal immigrants game, or whatever App you see fit. Apple gets it's $99 from the developer for appropriate certificates but Apple doesn't get any of the action from sales.

"You stay here, Audrey -- this is between me and the vegetable!" -- Seymour, from _Little Shop Of Horrors_

Working...