36 karma · joined May 15, 2012
Fast forward six months of the Nexus 4 sitting in a drawer forgotten about. I took it out and charged it. Amazingly, the phone now works 100%.
However, I have two issues:
The site is claiming that the likes are used to populate advertising on Facebook. Surely a better way to prevent that is through http://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads§ion=social&... rather than removing likes? Perhaps I'm being misled by Facebook, but I have presumed that by toggling the option on the linked page to "no one" I would not have my data used to populate advertising in that way.
A second issue is the access the site is asking for; it is significantly too much. Again, I'm not overly familiar with Facebook so perhaps I'm incorrect here, but surely the site only needs fairly restricted access? Maybe the API doesn't allow such fine-tuning, but being allowed to post on my timeline seems excessive.
http://www.mailboxapp.com/reservations/?p=1#how-were-rolling...
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/26/fully-functional-mame-em...
It will be interesting to see whether it lives up to the hype, but everything I've seen so far points in that direction.
However, despite registering within ~10 minutes of the reservation announcement, there are apparently 16,222 people in front of me in the queue.
I went through a stage of dependency on my iPhone, always filling in small gaps in my day with games, Twitter, email or Facebook. I realised I was spending too much time on it, and so for the past couple of years I've significantly restricted my time with the phone. Certainly it is never used in company. In my opinion, I've found a happy balance. I still get all the myriad pros that a smartphone offers, but don't reach for it every time I'm not busy.
This is the most important question. Thinking of the potential fallout is absolutely terrifying.
If this is the plan it's quite desperate, but it just could work.
A second issue is that a good many articles online that profess to be teaching something cite no sources whatsoever. As a lawyer I find it very difficult to move past that, and even if the content seems good, I'll immediately be put off using that source to learn from.
- A significant proportion of basic-functionality applications in OS X do not require installation. Therefore one that does may appear unusual for the user.
- Many applications for OS X are being delivered by the Mac App Store. As time goes on, presumably the type of user that would be likely to fall for such a scam would look in the App Store for it first.
- The user of the application may have used it previously and therefore would know this was not a normal installation experience.
- If the application is freeware, the user may be aware of this and thus suspicious of the activation. If the application is paid, it seems likely that the malware would have been attained in an attempt to pirate the application. Giving credit where it's due, someone who has the technical ability (by way of understanding search and keywords, possibly torrents etc) to pirate would be unlikely to fall for such an elementary scam.
- If users are attempting to find an application through a search engine, it seems unlikely that such an unscrupulous site as those distributing malware-ridden applications would command a high search ranking.
I have used some broad generalisations, but these factors when taken in the round should serve to minimise the impact of such a development by scammers. Nonetheless, it's very sad to see OS X becoming more of a target for these sorts of activities, even if as yet, the makers haven't been successful in making viruses that operate without user permission.
The discussion being had here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891637 - deals with a site that is allegedly identifying visitors individually somehow, most likely through something to do with social media. However, I'm skeptical.
The story presented by the writer is one that is largely inapplicable today. Developers and other content creators have got a better grip on regional pricing, most markets see software being released particularly since online distribution, and the software market has seen more budget alternatives to big name brands become available.
This response may appear rather dishevelled, but that is because I'm not sure what the point is that the article is attempting to touch on. The quasi-Marxist monologue is tired when the quality of free, or cheap software today is very high and so some wishy-washy argument about self-betterment through piracy is left looking rather weak.
There are some fairly strong arguments in favour of piracy, some even quite convincing. This is not one of them.