Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:No they didn't (Score 1) 149

(...) Apple invented the touchscreen phone as we know it. (...)

No they didn't. They did something else entirely, but it's so invisible that apparently nobody thinks of it. We had touchscreen smartphones well before the iPhone came out. And if you leave out the phone, we already had a comparable feature set back in 2000 with devices like the Sony Clie. None of that was revolutionary. What WAS revolutionary about the iPhone was the introduction of App Store (with the iPhone 3G). That's what made the iPhone the success it is and created the ecosystem needed to sustain it. They also introduced the iPhone at exactly the right time w.r.t. the state of battery, touchscreen and networking technology and Internet penetration. So if you're going to give credit to Apple for their inventions (which they deserve - don't get me wrong), let's do it for the right reasons: The App Store and perfect timing. The rest is just high-quality copy-catting.

Cool story, except the iphone was already successful before that. If you remember back when iphone happened (or ipod for that matter) it was basically about fashion/status. There were portable mp3 players before the ipod (many were better) but you were a loser if you didn't have an ipod. There were smartphones with touchscreens before the iphone but you were a loser if you didn't have an iphone. The fact that Apple stuff was more expensive than competitors was a selling point. Just as high prices are a selling point in fashion.

Comment Re:Hang their identities... (Score 1) 149

People who get hung up on what phone they are carrying are usually people who are least likely to afford an iPhone. I know several people working minimum wage jobs in Silicon Valley who are ordering the iPhone XS MAX 512GB for $350 down and $46 per month. They would be better off financially by buying a pre-owned iPhone 7 outright for $288.

You'd be better off not admitting you know them in the future ;).

Comment Re:Why does it matter? (Score 1) 149

As long as a phone as the features you want, what difference does it make which phone had them first, or how they ended up on your phone?

People who care about this kind of stuff...I mean...honestly. It's just the technonerd version of "My dad can beat up your dad."

I think the point of TFS was simply that people DO care about this stuff. The funny part is that usually those people are as wrong as the website linked in TFS about who did what first.

Comment Re:"Waste" versus "experiment" (Score 1) 99

Sometimes you just have to try an idea to see if it's practical, and see what software developers do it with. Being on the cutting edge means the idea may just flub out.

Yep, I agree. Coming from a guy who usually hates everything Apple (me), I think there's nothing to complain about when a company legitimately tries something innovative. Even if it doesn't work out. The constant passing off of software features as hardware features and other shenanigans I could do without.

Comment Re: Physical access to PC (Score 5, Informative) 79

It involves cooling the RAM chips with some kind of refrigerant spray. So yeah, you need the computer you do this with to be right in front of you and powered on and logged into at least once by some user with a key you want.

Full disk encryption is what this attack defeats. Full disk encryption is really ONLY useful to stop someone with physical control of the computer from accessing your data. Also, the details I read made this sound like a relatively easy attack to implement if you've prepped your work area reasonably. Consider that anyone doing this has already stolen a computer - perhaps by breaking into a home or business. Then they must have a computer with valuable enough data to bother going after it. They aren't going to be going after my pc, and probably not yours. Maybe a politician, banker, or someone with proprietary corporate secrets.. say a fortune 500 exec. For that kind of value as a target, this is a simple attack - compared to other attacks that might be used on high-value targets.

Comment Terrible idea (Score 1) 240

www.domain.com is not the same as domain.com in DNS. They both could be configured the same, but often they often deliberately resolve to a different destination. Chrome is effectively eliminating the ability of domain owners to utilize the www. subdomain as the owner sees fit. This will most likely force those who use the www subdomain today to begin using another designation for their webservers. One would hope that the replacement would become as widely recognized as www someday but I think that is unlikely. I think that google must have an ulterior motive to go after one of the more widely used subdomains on the planet. Luckily there are plenty of other browsers out there. Hopefully this will lead to a shift in browser usage to once again balance the landscape. It's happened repeatedly over the years when a browser manufacturer did something users perceived to not be in their best interests. In fact, this phenomenon is what resulted in chrome's current market lead.

Comment What the heck (Score 1) 105

Seems like someone took a left turn in their decision making. I'm no fan of any of the censorship stuff China or USAis doing. However, access to find some particular thing on a search engine is about as far from a "human right" as you can possibly get.

Human rights are things like food, water, air... claiming otherwise just waters down the value of your opinion later.

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein

Working...