Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:One crap audio brand battling with another (Score 1) 302

"Flat" relating to headphones usually means a flat frequency response, unless you are talking to people who don't have a clue (which is a very real possibility). A flat frequency response is the goal of a high fidelity system, the very word "fidelity" means trueness to the original source, which is what you get with a flat frequency response. The idea that a speaker needs to distort the sound because it "sounds good" is absurd, and in fact it's the exact same rationale audiofools have for preferring vinyl. Vinyl inherently has an uneven frequency response (among other things) and it is those characteristics that give it is distinctive sound, leading some to prefer it. It is distinctive but it is low fidelity, just like a poor set of speakers. Besides, if you want the treble or bass jacked up or some other frequency band notched, that's what equalizers are for. Although it should be noted they are called equalizers because the intent is to bring an equal loudness to all frequency bands - aka, a flat frequency response. To compensate for speakers that are not already flat.

Anybody with enough money for a pair of good audiophile headphones will be buying the "pro" beats, which have neutral sound by all reports (I've never tested them).

Comment: Re: Application sandboxing (Score 2, Informative) 577

by abhi_beckert (#48042645) Attached to: Will Windows 10 Finally Address OS Decay?

Except that "modern mobile devices" get messed up and bogged down exactly the same way - even if the apps are supposed to be sandboxed.
There is one million os wide settings , or system apps and services that can get screwed up and their internally stored data will start causing issues.
Is the battery drain on your android the same as it was after factory reset ? Didn't think so.

Android doesn't sandbox apps.

iOS does, and it doesn't suffer from this problem. All software is given a directory that they can read from/write to. There are a few places outside that which can be read, but virtually nothing has write access (except for a few cases where a system app will expose access to it's data via inter-app communication. Calendar for example has this).

When you uninstall the app, that directory is deleted. There is no trace at all that the app ever existed.

Comment: Re: Here's the solution (Score 2) 577

by abhi_beckert (#48042631) Attached to: Will Windows 10 Finally Address OS Decay?

When a program is UNinstalled, all traces of it should be gone. Apple took a different approach, which arguably works far better. Even if stuff is left behind, it just takes up a bit of disk space, and doesn't affect the system at all.

Apple took a different approach on iOS.

OS X suffers the same problems as Windows, although perhaps not as severe.

Comment: Not Brute Force (Score 3, Interesting) 93

by abhi_beckert (#47989053) Attached to: Apple Allegedly Knew of iCloud Brute-Force Vulnerability Since March

"Balic goes on to explain to Apple that he was able to try over 20,000 passwords combinations on any account."

20,000 is not a brute force attack. That will only succeed if your password was 3 characters long.

I find it hard to believe anyone was actually vulnerable to this.

Comment: Re:Bose is worried (Score 0) 162

by abhi_beckert (#47541923) Attached to: Bose Sues New Apple Acquisition Beats Over Patent Violations

Bose and Beats are both highly brand-focused. Bose targets the more mature quality-seeking crowd, while Beats targets the bass-hungry and fashion-conscious youth. There's some overlap, but generally I'd say their targets kept competition to a minimum, and they've pretty much cornered those targets

Apple has the best of both worlds being viewed both as high quality and a status symbol. If they start using their monster marketing teams to align peoples' view of Beats with that of Apple, Bose stands a chance of being pushed out of the market by a frightening direct competition. They've got good reason to try to stall the acquisition as much as possible

Bose also targets youth, although they do a terrible job of it and are getting their ass kicked by Beats.

And Beats also targets musicians with their "Pro" headphone which is not bass hungry at all and has higher quality than anything Bose has ever shipped. As far as I can tell, Beats Pro are some of the best studio headphones money can buy at the moment. If they weren't so expensive I would probably own a pair.

Comment: Re:Typical (Score -1, Troll) 162

by abhi_beckert (#47541919) Attached to: Bose Sues New Apple Acquisition Beats Over Patent Violations

"Those who can't create, litigate" --- who does this remind you of over last 2-3 years? Funny to see Apple whine about plays outta their OWN playbook

Apple filed a patent lawsuit against HTC in 2010, and Samsung in 2011. According to Wikipedia, are the only two patent lawsuits Apple has ever filed in the entire history of the company.

Both those lawsuits only happened after Apple spent years trying to negotiate their disagreements without involving the legal system.

A company that has only filed two lawsuits hardly has a "playbook" for suing people for patent infringement.

Comment: Re:Stronger than steel (Score 4, Interesting) 82

by abhi_beckert (#47209623) Attached to: Biodegradable Fibers As Strong As Steel Made From Wood Cellulose

Stronger than steel is cool and all, but that doesn't necessarily mean "all the same properties of steel". Durability, heat tolerance, reaction to moisture and a host of other things are likely to mean it's not a drop-in replacement for fibreglass/plastic/metal.

Fibreglass is terrible at all of the things you just listed and we use it for all kinds of things. It just has to be coated with a thin protective layer.

Comment: Re:Seems correct (Score 1) 53

Maybe Apple or the carriers will cut a deal... or maybe their marketing material will just start referring to "apple phones."

Apple is also a trademark, so they are not allowed to use that in advertising either.

I'm not familiar with Mexican law either but these laws are pretty well unified by international treaties. You cannot use another company's trademark in your advertising material unless you have permission. Any carrier who sells the iPhone to customers would have permission to use the trademark, so this tells me the carrier does not sell iPhones and therefore has no business using iPhone in their ads.

Comment: Re:Welcome to your new walled garden (Score 1) 225

by abhi_beckert (#47106055) Attached to: Google Starts Blocking Extensions Not In the Chrome Web Store

Chromium is open source so if you don't like it, fork you own copy and get whatever useless toolbars that install without permission that you want.

Darwin is open source too, so you can fork it and install whatever apps you want.

The fact is most people stick with the official release. Your platform is not "open" if your official release if third party extensions aren't allowed.

It's worth mentioning the (non-mobile) version of Safari does allow arbitrary third party extensions. There are some warnings to the user that it might be malware, but they don't block installation.

Comment: Re:Encryption (Score 4, Informative) 220

by abhi_beckert (#47096275) Attached to: PHK: HTTP 2.0 Should Be Scrapped

Last I heard, it still supports unencrypted, but only if both the client and server ask for it. If either one asks for encryption, then the connection is encrypted, even if there's no authentication (i.e. certificate). With no certificate, it's still possible to pull an active(MitM) attack, which is much harder to pull off at a large scale without anyone noticing (i.e. you can just collect all data you see).

A server cannot ask for encryption.

Unless the client establishes a secure connection in the first place, the server has no way of knowing if the client is actually who they claim to be. If the client attempts to establish a secure connection and the server responds with "I can't give you a secure connection" then the client needs to assume there is a man in the middle attack going on and refuse to communicate with the server.

There is no way around it, security needs to be initiated on the client and the server cannot be allowed to refuse a secure connection.

HSTS is a partial solution for this problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security)

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Working...