"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
John Whitworth wrote:

OK...fair enough. I touched a nerve - sorry. Here is my dislike for
Apple,
bulletpointed:

- proprietary, locked down.

As is almost every (succesful) phone on the market. Open source hasn't
produced such great things in life. Yes I like some Linux distros,
particularly Ubuntu server, but those Linux distributions that are the
best are those that have adopted a more or less proprieatary approach to
the release of software (Ubuntu, Red Hat, and shudder SuSE).

- no Flash.

Flash is an abomination. No flash is actually one reason that I would
buy an iPhone.

- appearance over functionality (admittedly more Mac than iPhone)

That's simply name calling and untrue.

- forcefeeding of software to 'support' the devices (i.e. iTunes)

Every phone needs something at the other end of the link. iTunes is IMO
a better endpoint that Samsung PC Studio or that forgettabel crap that
Nokia use. I've heard the same about the iPod and I've seen the hideous
inconsistent mess that users make when they load music onto their device
without something like iTunes to organise it. I prefer to have a package
that helps me to manage the crap on my iPod and would like something
similar for my phone.

- Apple fanboys, like the numpty who overheard me talking to a friend
about
MP3 players in a supermarket queue, who then turned round, interrupted,
and
started telling me that I needed an iPod, 'cos it was so ... ooh ...
incredible.

They like the product - a lot. If you think they're anal try talking to
a Porsche owner or a TVR owner. Or (god help you) anyone with an Acorn
Risc heap of crap.

All of those could be described as advantages, perhaps, but not to me - I
prefer an open architecture.

Your turn.

Well let me see:

1. Every Android phone is a brick with a poor quality display.
2. Androids with a keyboard have a lousy keyboard.
3. Androids with touchscreen are unresponsive and there's a noticeable
delay between touch and response.
4. The processors are sloooooooooow.
5. The designs are dreadful, the sort of tat knocked out by engineers
who think they know best.
6. The interfaces are poorly designed and inconsistent. Each maker
(makers like Motorola. HTC and Samsung none of whom understand
interface) creates their own "look and feel".
7. Like Linux it feels like something dreamed up by a kid in his
bedroom and the kid hasn't got around to finishing it yet.
8. Not one Android has the "pick it up, yes I know how this works" feel
of the iPhone.
9. Where are the apps?
10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
about Google. At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.
11. If you think Apple fanbois are bad, you haven't met a Google/Android
fanboi. At least Apple fanbois look as if they get laid from time to
time and can find a bar of soap without detailed instructions in
hexadecimal.
12. Flash on Android? Sometimes and perhaps if you chose the right
handset and then you get to deal with a slow pile of dross running
emulated code, on a slow processor.
13. Life with an Android is letting yourself in for a future of geekery
just to get a bloody phone working. Life's too short.
14. It takes a particular type of talent to come up with something worse
than a Sony Ericcson phone, and HTC etc have managed to do exactly\
that.

I'm sure I could go on for days about Android, face it though it's
unfortunately here today very definitely not here tomorrow crap. Even
Google are bailing out on their own product.

(I'd never heard of it till you two started...
S)

Steve Firth :
John Whitworth wrote:

Ahem - mount the phone like a physical drive, and just copy your files
across from your PC maybe? The package is called Windows Explorer, or
equivalent on other machines.

I guess you missed the comment about "hideous inconsistent mess"?

Actually with an HTC Legend you're not restricted to Windows Explorer.
As John says, the memory card appears as a removable drive on the PC
within a couple of seconds of plugging it in for charging. So you can
use any PC software you like. My preference is for J River Media Center,
which I find much easier to use and more flexible than iTunes. It syncs
the Legend's memory card perfectly. Rather better than it used to sync
my iPod, actually.

I'm not interested in the religious wars and I've never coveted an
iPhone, but I really like the Legend.

--
Mike Barnes

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
John Whitworth wrote:

Ahem - mount the phone like a physical drive, and just copy your files
across from your PC maybe? The package is called Windows Explorer, or
equivalent on other machines.

I guess you missed the comment about "hideous inconsistent mess"?

I'd like to reply to the rest of your post, but this open source news
server won't let me reply to so much material. My Mac Newsreader is hapy
to compose the post, but INN rejects it. I guess that's a case where
Open Source forces the user to do something they don't want?

[massive snip]

That's all folks. I think the last product sums up Steve Firth's
attitude/feelings etc.

See, I knew you realy weren't open to a discussion about the Android.
You're just an Apple hating Android fanboi, as you declared earlier.

No - there was just too much for you to take the time to respond to, which
is a shame, as I honoured your response properly. Again, attitude/feelings
obvious.

You're right - on first pass through your response, I did miss 'hideous
inconsistent mess'. Surely that's down to the user though? So if people
*need* management software, then that's fine by me. But don't force it on
everyone.

Interestingly, a Google for 'fanboi' yields around 253,000 results. A Google
for 'fanboy' yields over 4.5 million. You seem fond of the 'niche' usage.
Not sure what that says - so no point slating me for the observation. Do you
spend a lot of time fighting this corner?

Also, in your previous post, you said 'Like Linux'. You do realise that
Android uses a modified version of the Linux kernel? As you'll know from
other posts of mine, I'm no Linux or open-source fan (though your comment
about your *open source* newsreader betrays the fact that it passed you by).
For me personally, it doesn't excel on the desktop, but does on servers, and
as I've now found to my benefit, it excels on smartphones. So thumbs up to
another Linux 'win'. It's miles better than Symbian or Windows Mobile. By
the way, didn't I say 'open architecture', and not 'open source'? I guess
you missed that! Good old Windows Live Mail handles 'long' posts admirably.

Anyway, to sum up, I'm definitely no Android fanboy (that's fanboi to you!
). But it is a really really good implementation of Android on my HTC
Legend.

JW

"Mike Halmarack" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:11:10 +0100, "george [dicegeorge]"
wrote:

I think you want a cheap local phone and a netbook.

But the Dell mini 10v seems to be stopped.

http://euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Lapt...s=ukdhs1&s=dhs

is similar.

This would be a good choice. I'm going to suggest it.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Hmm,
Had a quick (well ish on the BB) look and though there are various
personalisations of features to include, the processor and ram look rather
wanting compared with a laptop proper: but then if it is *only* to be used
as a 'pda' fine: but I suspect that something that looks like a laptop is
going to be expected to be one...

S

John Whitworth wrote:

No - there was just too much for you to take the time to respond to, which
is a shame, as I honoured your response properly. Again, attitude/feelings
obvious.

Not at all, you're just prattling on too mutchand INN doesn't let one
reply to excessive rambling posts. There's no point anyway, you don't
have an open mind and you've already admitted to being a bigot.

John Whitworth wrote:

10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
about Google. At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.
You can see your bare arse in your garden from the top of a car?

Google regularly photograph naked people in their own gardens then they
tell lies about the event. They do this from aeroplanes as well as from cars.
You're giving the impression that you don't know much about the companies you
support/hate.

Here are some cases
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/...es-google.html
http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/11...-google-earth/
http://www.geekologie.com/2010/02/pr...man_caught.php

On 20 June, 21:07, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Whitworth wrote:
OK...fair enough. I touched a nerve - sorry. Here is my dislike for Apple,
bulletpointed:

- proprietary, locked down.

As is almost every (succesful) phone on the market. Open source hasn't
produced such great things in life. Yes I like some Linux distros,
particularly Ubuntu server, but those Linux distributions that are the
best are those that have adopted a more or less proprieatary approach to
the release of software (Ubuntu, Red Hat, and shudder SuSE).

- no Flash.

Flash is an abomination. No flash is actually one reason that I would
buy an iPhone.

- appearance over functionality (admittedly more Mac than iPhone)

That's simply name calling and untrue.

- forcefeeding of software to 'support' the devices (i.e. iTunes)

Every phone needs something at the other end of the link. iTunes is IMO
a better endpoint that Samsung PC Studio or that forgettabel crap that
Nokia use. I've heard the same about the iPod and I've seen the hideous
inconsistent mess that users make when they load music onto their device
without something like iTunes to organise it. I prefer to have a package
that helps me to manage the crap on my iPod and would like something
similar for my phone.

- Apple fanboys, like the numpty who overheard me talking to a friend about
MP3 players in a supermarket queue, who then turned round, interrupted, and
started telling me that I needed an iPod, 'cos it was so ... ooh ...
incredible.

They like the product - a lot. If you think they're anal try talking to
a Porsche owner or a TVR owner. Or (god help you) anyone with an Acorn
Risc heap of crap.

All of those could be described as advantages, perhaps, but not to me - I
prefer an open architecture.

Without entering the argument, well ok just a little, the orchard
reminds me of AOL in the early days with all the users stuck on little
kiddies level.

Your turn.

Well let me see:

Like a few people guess looking at upgrade or rip upo contract, 24 and
even 30 month cobtracts common now, last Nolia didn`t live out its
contract life, Symbian S60 was just terrible, size format was actually
useful.

Currently back on K800i doing well for nearly 3 years of pocket abuse,
the k800s joystick stands up better than k750 as does overall finish.
reception is franklu crap, alywasy used to claim greatr camera with
wobbly phone bolted on.

As back up phone Argos have offer on 3 network FT102, 2mp camera,
Bluetooth, 20 quid plus 10 quid top up, 30 quid at the till. Includes
free Skype and MSN messenger for life , Skype works well anywhere get
a 3 3G connection which is more places than can get a Vodafone
one.....


1. *Every Android phone is a brick with a poor quality display.

The unreadable under sunlight AMOLED displays, new Samsung Galaxy has
Super AMOLED display actually useable under sunlight, but it runs
BADA.

2. *Androids with a keyboard have a lousy keyboard.

Read elsewhere that Andoid OS has to have apps specifically programmed
to each keypad and screen res out there , making development a bit
more of a chore.

3. *Androids with touchscreen are unresponsive and there's a noticeable
* * delay between touch and response.

Wonder if that is related to some app handling as above, Nexus One
is apparently well known for its lower soft buttons to be sllloooowww

4. *The processors are sloooooooooow.

Realy dinnnae need a phone with a fan, battery life is currently at th
having giraffe level already.

5. The designs are dreadful, the sort of tat knocked out by engineers
who think they know best.

Big is best look like Dom Jolly. HELLO!

6. The interfaces are poorly designed and inconsistent. Each maker
(makers like Motorola. HTC and Samsung none of whom understand
interface) creates their own "look and feel".

Android seems far from any standard, X10 mini launched less than 5
days ago in UK, runs Android 1.6 which dosent run flash natively,
Androis current V2.2 (?) why are phones getting released with old
OSes.....


7. *Like Linux it feels like something dreamed up by a kid in his
* * bedroom and the kid hasn't got around to finishing it yet.

Thats S60 that is

8. *Not one Android has the "pick it up, yes I know how this works" feel
* * of the iPhone.

IPhone is its add ons really which integrate well

9. *Where are the apps?

With Android kicking Iphone into third place in US, be lots more
shortly. Crackberry has more than third of market , iphone about15

10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
* * about Google. At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
* * bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including
* * data traffic and passwords.

Googles motto is `do no evil` but if someonelse go the data...

11. If you think Apple fanbois are bad, you haven't met a Google/Android
* * fanboi. At least Apple fanbois look as if they get laid from time to
* * time and can find a bar of soap without detailed instructions in
* * hexadecimal.

Thats not a real reason is it, apple users always have a well stocked
bathroom of grooming product probably.

12. Flash on Android? Sometimes and perhaps if you chose the right
* * handset and then you get to deal with a slow pile of dross running
* * emulated code, on a slow processor.

Looks like this is very real possibility.

13. Life with an Android is letting yourself in for a future of geekery
* * just to get a bloody phone working. Life's too short.

Dunno had the battery pull reset on okia to sub 10 secs, do i want a
spirit level on my phone, probably not.

14. It takes a particular type of talent to come up with something worse
* * than a Sony Ericcson phone, and HTC etc have managed to do exactly\
* * that.

Nokia went from top dog of usability to something that mad LG look
user friendly.


I'm sure I could go on for days about Android, face it though it's
unfortunately here today very definitely not here tomorrow crap. Even
Google are bailing out on their own product.

Its not really a standard , and backwards compatability or even future
compatibilty is not guranteed.

None of the attract me and the all remind me of netbooks , where
return rates were running agt 35% because people expected them to
behave like laptops, lot of them cost the same, lwell leave the
orchard tupperware lid as a feak of nature.

Large screens are largely unreadable in direct sunlight, next
heneration of AMOLED screens beginning to solve this.

Battery life is getting below useable on some, hard day out and about
and yopu might not have enough juice left to phone a taxi, what did
this device start out as?

Size is getting out of control, if I wanted a blasted PDA thats waht
I`d be looking at, except PDAs are fatter to accomodate decent
batteries.

Fragility, its big with a glass covered touch screen and you carry it
in a pocket, great...

I want a colour screen Nokia 8310 with wifi and GPS not a portable
colour TV in my pocket personally.

Cheers
Adam

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:09:54 +0100, "Spamlet"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:11:10 +0100, "george [dicegeorge]"
wrote:

I think you want a cheap local phone and a netbook.

But the Dell mini 10v seems to be stopped.

http://euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Lapt...s=ukdhs1&s=dhs

is similar.

This would be a good choice. I'm going to suggest it.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Hmm,
Had a quick (well ish on the BB) look and though there are various
personalisations of features to include, the processor and ram look rather
wanting compared with a laptop proper: but then if it is *only* to be used
as a 'pda' fine: but I suspect that something that looks like a laptop is
going to be expected to be one...

Yes, I noticed that cost could be added in a good cause.:-)
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:18:09 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:57:29 +0100, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

I've read more level headed and rational discussions of mobile devices
on this forum than in many of the dedicated ones.
At present I'm trying to help my daughter make some decisions about
the best way for her to communicate with us here while she's away in
Canada. To this end, I've been researching some of the current 'Smart'
devices available, with an emphasis on initial cost and economy of
regular use.

Give in and get her an iPhone. It's what she really wants, it's what
all her friends have.

This advice should not be taken as negating my contempt for all things
Apple and their iMarketing technique. But, hell, it's your daughter.
Be nice!

I'm always nice but rarely nice enough.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Adam Aglionby wrote:

Without entering the argument, well ok just a little, the orchard
reminds me of AOL in the early days with all the users stuck on little
kiddies level.

That's a ludicrous statement. What you're saying in other words is that
if technology was difficult to write it should be difficult to use.

The majority of Apple users that I know are far more aware of OS and
infrstructure issues than the kiddies who play with Windows. And if you
look beneath the GUI MacOS is a proper Unix, not something written by a
kid in his bedroom.

Mike Barnes wrote:

I'm not interested in the religious wars and I've never coveted an iPhone,
but I really like the Legend.

The only one having a religious war is Mr Whitworth. People who want an
HTC phone are welcome to them, but someone who gives advice after
declaring a religious conviction that they hate a particular phone maker
yet demands others to provide full technical details of their dislike of
a particular technology is skating in thin ice.

On 21 June, 06:39, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:
Without entering the argument, well ok just a little, the orchard
reminds me of AOL in the early days with all the users stuck on little
kiddies level.

That's a ludicrous statement. What you're saying in other words is that
if technology was difficult to write it should be difficult to use.

Should have been clearer, more concerned with Apples reject rate for
apps , its a walled orchard with a very high wall.

Firefox for instance will not be making an appearance on iphone/touch/
pad.


The majority of Apple users that I know are far more aware of OS and
infrstructure issues than the kiddies who play with Windows. And if you
look beneath the GUI MacOS is a proper Unix, not something written by a
kid in his bedroom.

Unix of course being a registered trademark....

Cheers
Adam

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Mike Barnes wrote:

I'm not interested in the religious wars and I've never coveted an
iPhone,
but I really like the Legend.

The only one having a religious war is Mr Whitworth. People who want an
HTC phone are welcome to them, but someone who gives advice after
declaring a religious conviction that they hate a particular phone maker
yet demands others to provide full technical details of their dislike of
a particular technology is skating in thin ice.

A religious war? No, I posted a throwaway comment about Apple-bashing, and
you took it to heart. Who is the real fanboy around here?

Anyway, I've no time for you any more. We had some bad, real life news this
morning. So you know what you can do with your iPhone. And if you want me to
shove my Legend up there too, you've only to ask. Will you be able to find
your apps still?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Adam Aglionby wrote:

Without entering the argument, well ok just a little, the orchard
reminds me of AOL in the early days with all the users stuck on little
kiddies level.

That's a ludicrous statement. What you're saying in other words is that
if technology was difficult to write it should be difficult to use.

The majority of Apple users that I know are far more aware of OS and
infrstructure issues

Except you - who took my comment about open architecture to mean open
source, and then went barking up all the wrong trees. Numpty!

John Whitworth wrote:

A religious war? No, I posted a throwaway comment about Apple-bashing, and
you took it to heart.

No, that's a lie. I posted that the Android was a waste of components
you had a cow.

Who is the real fanboy around here?

You.

Anyway, I've no time for you any more. We had some bad, real life news this
morning.

Not My Problem, I Don't Care.

So you know what you can do with your iPhone. And if you want me to
shove my Legend up there too, you've only to ask. Will you be able to find
your apps still?

Petulant little brat, aren't you?

John Whitworth wrote:

Numpty!

Keep the .sig, it suits you.

On 21 June, 18:15, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Whitworth wrote:
Anyway, I've no time for you any more. We had some bad, real life news this
morning.

Not My Problem, I Don't Care.

Errrr, this seems to be a bit of a childish over-reaction! Please grow
up, you're giving i-phone users a bad name.

"Spamlet" wrote in message
...


To butt in here with an aside: as you seem to have looked at this can you
recommend an alternative MP3 player that docks with the same connector as
an iPod? Just saying this cos I was conned into buying a piece of
ipod-like junk at christmas and now have nice speakers but nothing to dock
on them in my reluctance to be 'proprietarily locked down'. Burnt once I
have been reluctant to guess again.


A lot of the ones I've seen are happy to connect to pretty much any MP3
player through the headphone socket.

You'll not be able to use a remote control or the on-dock controls.

You will, on the other hand, have the advantage (with most 'other' brands)
of just being able to drag and drop music, photos and videos without having
to 'sync' using iTunes.

Martin Pentreath wrote:

On 21 June, 18:15, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Whitworth wrote:
Anyway, I've no time for you any more. We had some bad, real life news
this morning.

Not My Problem, I Don't Care.

Errrr, this seems to be a bit of a childish over-reaction!

In what way is it "an over reaction"? Mr Whitworth wants to drag in his
personal life seemingly as an excuse for acting like a fool. To do so in
a discussion, such as it is, on Usenet is even more foolish. His life
isn't my problem, it's his.


Please grow up, you're giving i-phone users a bad name.

I don't have an iPhone.

And all you have contributed is name calling.

On Jun 22, 8:02 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Martin Pentreath wrote:
On 21 June, 18:15, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Whitworth wrote:
Anyway, I've no time for you any more. We had some bad, real life news
this morning.

Not My Problem, I Don't Care.

Errrr, this seems to be a bit of a childish over-reaction!

In what way is it "an over reaction"? Mr Whitworth wants to drag in his
personal life seemingly as an excuse for acting like a fool. To do so in
a discussion, such as it is, on Usenet is even more foolish. His life
isn't my problem, it's his.

Please grow up, you're giving i-phone users a bad name.

I don't have an iPhone.

And all you have contributed is name calling.

you really love it don't you Steve? ;))))

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Spamlet" wrote in message
...


To butt in here with an aside: as you seem to have looked at this can you
recommend an alternative MP3 player that docks with the same connector as
an iPod? Just saying this cos I was conned into buying a piece of
ipod-like junk at christmas and now have nice speakers but nothing to
dock on them in my reluctance to be 'proprietarily locked down'. Burnt
once I have been reluctant to guess again.


A lot of the ones I've seen are happy to connect to pretty much any MP3
player through the headphone socket.

You'll not be able to use a remote control or the on-dock controls.

You will, on the other hand, have the advantage (with most 'other' brands)
of just being able to drag and drop music, photos and videos without
having to 'sync' using iTunes.

I hope you are wrong there because I just forked out for a new nano after my
nephew assured me he just drags and drops into his nano and has never used
itunes...

S

On 20 June, 21:07, (Steve Firth) wrote:


Open source hasn't produced such great things in life.


I'll just let that one sit there.


Flash is an abomination. No flash is actually one reason that I would
buy an iPhone.

Flash is an abomination. It's also a widely used abomination, and
significant bits of the web don't work without it. That's bad, but
it's not something I can change.

I note also that you're taking the Dennis line of "I don't have a
XXXX, but I'll gob on about them"


1. *Every Android phone is a brick with a poor quality display.

Get a Desire, not a Legend

2. *Androids with a keyboard have a lousy keyboard.

As opposed to iPhones?

3. *Androids with touchscreen are unresponsive and there's a noticeable
* * delay between touch and response.

Not with Android 2

4. *The processors are sloooooooooow.

Get a Desire, not a Legend


5. *The designs are dreadful, the sort of tat knocked out by engineers
* * who think they know best.

Get a Desire, not a Legend


6. *The interfaces are poorly designed and inconsistent. Each maker
* * (makers like Motorola. HTC and Samsung none of whom understand
* * interface) creates their own "look and feel".

They don't mess with the base UI much, but some (Samsung especially)
do foist their own broken versions of major apps on you. However you
have a choice of which to use - and rather more of a choice than on
the iPhone.


9. *Where are the apps?

Blame Apple for that. iPhone's store, store pricing model, and
****wittery behind the scenes have killed the market for making a
living by selling phone apps. People who've been doing this
successfully for 10 years are now shifting to either giving stuff
away, or else doing complicated vertical market apps for estate agents
etc.

10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
* * about Google.

True. Satan does still have the best tunes though.

At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
* * bare arse in my garden

Never mind dear, I'm sure you could upload it to Flickr, if you really
want

or record the details of my WiFi including
* * data traffic and passwords.

Passwords? Neither have Google, don't exaggerate.

11. If you think Apple fanbois are bad, you haven't met a Google/Android
* * fanboi. At least Apple fanbois look as if they get laid from time to
* * time and can find a bar of soap without detailed instructions in
* * hexadecimal.

I want them to write apps for me, I'm not trying to shag them.

Even Google are bailing out on their own product.

More ********. They've bailed on trying to _sell_ a decent product to
the Yanks, who are so used to a crap service for mobile that their
fluffy little heads still can't handle the idea of unlocked. As
Google's product is the Android platform, not the phone hardware,
certainly not the shop, this just doesn't matter.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...

I note also that you're taking the Dennis line of "I don't have a
XXXX, but I'll gob on about them"

I see andy is gobbing about stuff he has no idea about again.
he still hasn't worked out the difference between don't have and never had.
I suppose he is just to thick to work it out.
I suspect he is also to mean to give something away if he thinks its cr@p
and has no use for it.
I expect he lives in a flat full of old newspapers, cardboard boxes and sh!t
as he obviously keeps everything no matter how bad he thinks it is so he can
come here and gob about it.

On Jun 23, 11:26 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

...

I note also that you're taking the Dennis line of "I don't have a
XXXX, but I'll gob on about them"

I see andy is gobbing about stuff he has no idea about again.
he still hasn't worked out the difference between don't have and never had.
I suppose he is just to thick to work it out.

I don't have a XXXX

shurely a shtrange turn of phrashe for shomeone that now claimsh to
actually "have had" one?!
"i used to have an XXX" would make more shenshe?....unlesh it's all
jusht more pompoush mishchief....?

ho ho - laugh? I nearly shat myshelf ;))

Jim K

Andy Dingley wrote:

or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

Passwords? Neither have Google, don't exaggerate.

sigh

You really like walking into these don't you?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...and_passwords/

Are you apologising this time, or have your balls not dropped yet?

Steve Firth wrote:

Andy wrote:

or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

Passwords? Neither have Google, don't exaggerate.

You really like walking into these don't you?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...and_passwords/

The media is reporting it as though Google has deliberately set out to
capture passwords, I don't know if their hands are *entirely* clean on
this one, but I doubt they set out to record passwords, if all they
wanted was a database of SSID and MAC addresses to provide geolocation
data they had no need to record all the traffic they sniffed.

In the end they captured all unencrypted WiFi data, which is *bound* to
include some email contents and some passwords, since people who don't
even enable WEP for their access point are unlikely to enable TLS in
their email client. The data probably includes fragments of illegal pr0n
too, maybe they should be sued for possessing indecent images?

On Jun 23, 7:01*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
or record the details of my WiFi including
* * data traffic and passwords.

Passwords? Neither have Google, don't exaggerate.

sigh

You really like walking into these don't you?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...iew_cars_wifi_...

More stellar mis-reporting from el Reg, it's just surprising that this
time it's not Orlowski.

Read the French article that's the source for the Reg. Even that
doesn't get this as far wrong.

Google didn't snoop WiFi passwords, or crack encrypted WiFi networks.
They did record some traffic, although it's claimed that this was just
a rolling buffer and they didn't even store it beyond that. They
didn't attack SSL traffic over these links.

So if by "password" you mean plaintext traffic, over an unsecured web
protocol, over an unsecured wireless link, then yes, they probably did
filter-feed a few out of all that volume. But if you mean "Google set
out to break wireless networks" as you'd clearly like to frighten us
into believing, then it's still ********.

On Jun 23, 10:11 pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jun 23, 7:01 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

Passwords? Neither have Google, don't exaggerate.

sigh

You really like walking into these don't you?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...iew_cars_wifi_...

More stellar mis-reporting from el Reg, it's just surprising that this
time it's not Orlowski.

Read the French article that's the source for the Reg. Even that
doesn't get this as far wrong.

Google didn't snoop WiFi passwords, or crack encrypted WiFi networks.
They did record some traffic, although it's claimed that this was just
a rolling buffer and they didn't even store it beyond that. They
didn't attack SSL traffic over these links.

So if by "password" you mean plaintext traffic, over an unsecured web
protocol, over an unsecured wireless link, then yes, they probably did
filter-feed a few out of all that volume. But if you mean "Google set
out to break wireless networks" as you'd clearly like to frighten us
into believing, then it's still ********.

go on Steve flatten him with your unassailable ripost.............eh?
we're waiting (still)

Andy Dingley wrote:

So if by "password" you mean plaintext traffic, over an unsecured web
protocol, over an unsecured wireless link, then yes, they probably did
filter-feed a few out of all that volume.

It would have saved you time to type "yes you were right". Shame you
can't grow those balls yet, eh?

But if you mean "Google set out to break wireless networks"

Where did I say that?

as you'd clearly like to frighten us into believing,

No, you're telling a lie.

then it's still ********.

The ******** is what you are writing to dig yourself out of another hole
that you dug.

In message , Andy
Burns writes
Steve Firth wrote:

Andy wrote:

or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

Passwords? Neither have Google, don't exaggerate.

You really like walking into these don't you?


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...w_cars_wifi_da
ta_includes_emails_and_passwords/

The media is reporting it as though Google has deliberately set out to
capture passwords, I don't know if their hands are *entirely* clean on
this one, but I doubt they set out to record passwords, if all they
wanted was a database of SSID and MAC addresses to provide geolocation
data they had no need to record all the traffic they sniffed.

Back in January google applied for a patent on the very techniques they
used to capture this data, but they now claim that the data capture was
an accident, caused by one rogue engineer. I find that claim somewhat
tenuous to say the least.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...riving_patent/

Someone

On Jun 23, 10:51*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

But if you mean "Google set out to break wireless networks"

Where did I say that?

"details of my WiFi including passwords"

Which is presumably not to be interpreted as passwords to your gmail,
but passwords to your WiFi itself

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jun 23, 10:51 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

But if you mean "Google set out to break wireless networks"

Where did I say that?

"details of my WiFi including passwords"

i.e. I didn't say it at all. Nor did I say that phrase that you have
claimed is a quote from me. I made no mention of "set out to break
wireless networks". Harvesting traffic including passwords is not the
same as breaking wireless networks, and I've never made the claim that
it is. You've also had to eliminate the context in order to put your
peculiar spin on what I said since:

At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my bare arse in my
garden or record the details of my WiFi including data traffic and
passwords.

makes it clear that I specifically referred to Google recording the
details of WiFi including data traffic and passwords and made no mention
of them trying to break WiFi as you claim.

Your "quote" above isn't even a quote and you even snipped words from
the middle of the phrase without marking that fact.

Which is presumably not to be interpreted as passwords to your gmail,
but passwords to your WiFi itself

It's to be interpreted as a dishonest claim by you, as comparison of
what you claim I have said and what I actually said shows.

On 24 June, 07:24, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:51 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

But if you mean "Google set out to break wireless networks"

Where did I say that?

"details of my WiFi including passwords"

i.e. I didn't say it at all. Nor did I say that phrase that you have
claimed is a quote from me.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.d-i-y/msg/de68a23f54c2fbd2

10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
about Google. At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

On Jun 24, 10:31 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 24 June, 07:24, (Steve Firth) wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:51 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

But if you mean "Google set out to break wireless networks"

Where did I say that?

"details of my WiFi including passwords"

i.e. I didn't say it at all. Nor did I say that phrase that you have
claimed is a quote from me.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.d-i-y/msg/de68a23f54c2fbd2

10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
about Google. At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

come on Steve stop squirming! sort him out or p1ss off

Jim K

Huge wrote:

On 2010-06-23, Steve Firth wrote:

Maybe you and others don't give two hoots about privacy where privacy is
due but many do.

I'm just glad that I live down a sufficiently long private drive that all
that can be seen on StreetView is a distant shot of my roof, and good luck
picking up my wifi ...

True for one house, but that has a detailed aerial view on Google. The
other is from an era when houses were built close to the road. The cases
in question were, however people who presumably thought that their
two-metre security fences provided an element of privacy. I note that
Google has tried to claim that it's to be expected that someone would
drive down the street with a camera on a pole. As they have also claimed
that everyone should have expected someone to snoop on their WiFi.

Andy Dingley wrote:

On 24 June, 07:24, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:51 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

But if you mean "Google set out to break wireless networks"

Where did I say that?

"details of my WiFi including passwords"

i.e. I didn't say it at all. Nor did I say that phrase that you have
claimed is a quote from me.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.d-i-y/msg/de68a23f54c2fbd2

10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
about Google. At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

Now try finding the string "details of my WiFi including passwords" in
the phrase that you quote. Here's a clue, no match.

Here's the clue, bozo:

'Your "quote" above isn't even a quote and you even snipped words from
the middle of the phrase without marking that fact.'

On Jun 24, 9:35 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 24 June, 07:24, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:51 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

But if you mean "Google set out to break wireless networks"

Where did I say that?

"details of my WiFi including passwords"

i.e. I didn't say it at all. Nor did I say that phrase that you have
claimed is a quote from me.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.d-i-y/msg/de68a23f54c2fbd2

10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
about Google. At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

Now try finding the string "details of my WiFi including passwords" in
the phrase that you quote. Here's a clue, no match.

Here's the clue, bozo:

'Your "quote" above isn't even a quote and you even snipped words from
the middle of the phrase without marking that fact.'

erm....oh...right then. shall we call that a "mutter as goes off into
distance" (MAGOID) then?

10. If you think Apple is the Great Satan you really haven't thought
about Google. At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my
bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including
data traffic and passwords.

Jim K

Huge wrote:
On 2010-06-24, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2010-06-23, Steve Firth wrote:

Maybe you and others don't give two hoots about privacy where privacy is
due but many do.
I'm just glad that I live down a sufficiently long private drive that all
that can be seen on StreetView is a distant shot of my roof, and good luck
picking up my wifi ...
True for one house, but that has a detailed aerial view on Google. The
other is from an era when houses were built close to the road. The cases
in question were, however people who presumably thought that their
two-metre security fences provided an element of privacy. I note that
Google has tried to claim that it's to be expected that someone would
drive down the street with a camera on a pole. As they have also claimed
that everyone should have expected someone to snoop on their WiFi.

Oh, you'll get no dispute from me that Google have definitely strayed into
"evil" territory.


But is there a government anywhere that is really going to oppose this
kind of intelligence gathering? These days it seems we cannot afford to
have anonymous bods roaming about under the radar. Google just happens
to be very good at it.

Mike Halmarack wrote:

At present I'm trying to help my daughter make some decisions about
the best way for her to communicate with us here while she's away in
Canada. To this end, I've been researching some of the current 'Smart'
devices available

Bit of a delayed response, but just been looking at alternatives and
noticed that Virgin Broadband2Go is available in Canada, via "The
Source", might be of interest ...