Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:iOS 8 compatible apps not related (Score 1) 281

by _xeno_ (#47960179) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is iOS 8 a Pig?

The X.0.0 upgrades are pretty well known for including slower/unoptimized drivers and code paths. Apple is usually in a hurry to get the release out the door and they don't do all the optimizations they should.

I remember ArsTechnica's review of iOS 8 confirmed that it's slower and has worse battery life than iOS 7 on every device that runs both except for some version of the iPod, weirdly enough. In some cases it was very slight, but iOS 8 was always worse.

They also warned people not to install iOS 8 on the iPhone 4S not only due to performance concerns but because the UI doesn't really fit on the screen. (Or something along those lines.)

So, sure, iOS 8 is a "pig," for certain definitions of "pig," and anyone who reads Slashdot (which posted the ArsTechnica article) should have been aware of that before upgrading.

Comment: NFC isn't used for just payment (Score 3, Informative) 325

by _xeno_ (#47934729) Attached to: Apple Locks iPhone 6/6+ NFC To Apple Pay Only

Apple does realize that NFC isn't only used for payment systems, right? My camera can transfer pictures to a smart phone using NFC. It allows you to take high quality pictures of something and then post them straight to whatever social media you're using without going through a computer. It's a really nice feature when you're wandering around someplace photogenic and don't want to be limited to a cellphone camera.

Oh, right, Apple declared proper digital cameras "dead" in their iPhone 6 keynote. I guess that feature will never make it to iOS then.

Not to mention other types of data transfer that's possible with NFC like easily sharing contact information or things like that.

Comment: Re:Not good enough (Score 1) 320

by _xeno_ (#47921425) Attached to: Say Goodbye To That Unwanted U2 Album

No. Automatic Downloads are turned Off by default.

No, it isn't. Apparently you're told to turn it on during setup (it's "recommended" or something) and so it doesn't default to either off or on, you're forced to decide. Which means that:

If it is setup otherwise on your devices, you turned it on.

Is technically true. But only technically.

Because there are definitely people out there who have automatic updates on and didn't know that their phones could even do that. They complained loudly enough that this article exists.

So either someone else turned it on for them, or they missed the part during setup where they could turn it off. Or more likely failed to understand what they were asked during setup and turned on a feature that they had no intention of ever using, since it's only useful in a very bizarre set of circumstances.

Comment: Re:Not good enough (Score 2) 320

by _xeno_ (#47918141) Attached to: Say Goodbye To That Unwanted U2 Album

You can set a bit such that the phone will only download new purchases over wifi.

And how many users do you think knew that they needed to do this prior to the album being released?

The autodownload feature is only useful if you're completely within the Apple ecosystem and regularly buy songs from your iPad and want them to show up on your iPhone (or vice versa). If you either never download tracks off the music store or only download them on a single device (such as, say, someone who only owns the one iPhone), you'd never know that there even was an automatic download feature. (And if you're downloading them to your PC, you just sync to it and don't worry about downloading it a second time.)

If you aren't aware there is an automatic download feature, how are you supposed to know to either turn it off or set it to wifi only?

U2 showing up on the phone is likely the first time the majority of users even were made aware that there was an automatic download feature. Based on the articles and comments I've read, I know that there are people who only discovered this feature existed when U2 suddenly showed up on their iPhone. It may turn out to be a vocal minority, but this definitely was not something all iPhone users expected to happen.

Comment: Re:Not good enough (Score 2, Insightful) 320

by _xeno_ (#47917881) Attached to: Say Goodbye To That Unwanted U2 Album

a) false. You had to have your device set to allow automatic pushes.

Which is, of course, the default.

And, if I'm not mistaken, Apple defaults to downloading anything less than 100MB over cellular data. Which could be quite costly to people on more expensive data plans.

III) That's irrelevant to what happened. You putting this here tells me the only reason you are upset is because it's a group you don't like.

Well, yeah, it's U2. Their music is terrible. I'd be pretty pissed if I had U2 forced on me.

Wait, "anyone who has an Apple account?" Crap. That does include me.

Comment: Re:No no no... (Score 1) 85

by _xeno_ (#47883563) Attached to: Mining iPhones and iCloud For Data With Forensic Tools

From what I've been reading, it seems most likely that only some of these photos came from compromised iCloud accounts, and those accounts were probably not compromised due to an exploit of iCloud's service.

As I understand it (and I may be wrong), the accounts were accessed by abusing the "forgot my password" service. Resetting someone's Apple account password on them is notoriously easy, and it would make sense that's the way the hackers did it. I thought they didn't blame "weak passwords" so much as they blamed "weak security question answers" that the "hacker" guessed the answers to.

Then again, I may be misremembering or misreading the stories, I'm not sure if the actual details have been made public.

Comment: Re:Any removable storage yet? (Score 2) 730

by _xeno_ (#47868995) Attached to: Apple Announces Smartwatch, Bigger iPhones, Mobile Payments

And the fact that it is the #1 camera and #1 camcorder in the world is proof positive that they have succeeded.

I call bullshit on that. The iPhone isn't even the #1 phone in the world.

And let me try and make my point clear: Fake-Steve-Jobs was standing in front of a slide showing a camcorder being destroyed, saying that they were made completely obsolete by the iPhone.

And that's entirely bullshit.

Until the iPhone has a user-replaceable battery and removable storage, it will never replace a real camera or a real camcorder. It simply can't.

Comment: Re:Any removable storage yet? (Score 1) 730

by _xeno_ (#47865545) Attached to: Apple Announces Smartwatch, Bigger iPhones, Mobile Payments

And I'm guessing the last time you used it there were two zeros in the date?

The last time I used it was Saturday. The last time I tried to take video with my cellphone was ... I actually can't remember. Probably because if I'm going to be taking video of something, I'll generally plan ahead to have the camcorder around.

There's absolutely no way the iPhone has enough storage space to make recording video viable without removable storage. Not unless you're only using it for things like Vine.

Comment: Any removable storage yet? (Score 2, Insightful) 730

by _xeno_ (#47864947) Attached to: Apple Announces Smartwatch, Bigger iPhones, Mobile Payments

I only saw one brief bit of the stream, and it was where Steve Jobs Wannabe (Tim Cook?) was explaining how no one used camcorders any more because the iPhone could take better video. Which leads to the obvious question: does the iPhone have a replaceable battery and removable storage yet?

Because I still have a camcorder hanging around and I use it when I want to take a video that lasts longer than a couple of minutes. The entire reason I have my camcorder is so that I can take two hour videos. Then, when the battery dies, I can swap it out with a new one. And if I manage to run out of storage space, I can swap out to a new SDXC card.

Can't do either of those with an iPhone, making it a toy at taking pictures and video. Which is, to be fair, frequently fine. But Faux-Steve-Jobs's idea that the iPhone can replace a camcorder is just hilarious without those two very simple features.

Comment: Re:Seems unlikely to me (Score 1) 142

by _xeno_ (#47854867) Attached to: Feds Say NSA "Bogeyman" Did Not Find Silk Road's Servers

Well, you could actually read the dam court documents. If you put random junk into the CAPTCHA boxes sometimes you would get an error page back - over TOR - but which contained the true IP address of the server.

Where do you get this? Because the court documents in the article certainly don't say that. In fact, they seem to be saying that the IP packets themselves contained the IP:

Upon examining the individual packets of data being sent back from the website, we noticed that the headers of some of the packets reflected a certain IP address not associated with any known Tor node as the source of the packets.

That's not an error message, that's (apparently) an HTTP(S?) request being sent straight to the Tor servers. And the only way I can think of to screw up a CAPTCHA implementation to do that would be to have it construct a complete URL using the host IP instead of just using the configured host name, which would be insane.

Again: according to the FBI themselves, this wasn't "debugging data" or anything, it was packets that were for whatever reason completely outside of the Tor network.

I don't know why people seem to find it so hard to believe that the FBI would decide to target the highest-profile online illegal drug marketplace without prompting from "sinister forces"

Because we're aware of things like COINTELPRO or, for those of us in the Boston area, remember little things like Whitey Bulger? I don't trust the FBI because they've gone out of their way to prove they are not to be trusted.

Comment: Re:Seems unlikely to me (Score 3, Interesting) 142

by _xeno_ (#47852503) Attached to: Feds Say NSA "Bogeyman" Did Not Find Silk Road's Servers

The only way I can think of to accidentally do what the FBI is claiming is if he just grabbed an poorly written CAPTCHA program off the Internet and it constructed its own URLs back to the server using the server's IP address.

Why it would do that instead of using the configured server name or, even better, just use a relative URL would be anyone's guess. But it's the only plausible way for the FBI's explanation to make any sort of sense.

(Or, to put it another way, they're almost certainly lying.)

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.