I find this really offensive and am reporting it as such.
Wahhh! And I'm reporting you too, for being a crybaby and insulting my writing skills in the other thread where you started your problem and now pretending to take insult here too.
Just add me to your "ignore list" if I bother you so, Professor. Bye!
Back on topic...
What is true, from my experience in the military, unlike some cowards around here it seems, that the military tend to choose a rough image, they are supposed to be bad-asses after all.
And the iPhone seems so feminine, not trolling, it's true.
Thus it's likely that not many soldiers (males ones) will choose it over a Android phone.
Also the Android phone will allow certain, say OS alterations, that Apple won't allow due to their closed nature.
Speak to it using the headset the soldier's already wearing? I don't think it would be too far-fetched to be able to tie in their headset somehow. From what I can tell, the speech recognition software is fairly accurate.
My point was that handicapped societies and governments around the world have specific requirements that are documented in great detail and somewhat inflexible. The government or institutional buyer is looking for various certifications and so forth. Tick-boxes, that have to be checked off for the purchase to go through.
While Android devices may, through some combination of programs and so forth, provide similar abilities, it isn't certain that they can and they are not, in general certified in that way. iPhone on the other hand passes all those certifications and was designed to do so years before it was even released. Apple thought ahead and made the iPhone the best, fully certified phone for the blind for example. I'm sure some blind people may get by with an Android phone, but the iPhone is an easier and more conforming choice.
Now the leaks could come directly from the field and in real-time :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer
WikiLeaks was my first thought as well. The current Find My Phone can brick a phone remotely, but what if a phone is lost or captured with its owner who knows the passwords before any of his colleagues find out? Security has a lot of ramifications that no doubt the military would have to work through.
Wouldn't it be a lot cooler for the commander to say: here is your issued apple iPhone 4 with a camo bumper.
+1
Why would the army even allow troops to carry such an insecure product as the Android? Download the wrong app and the enemy could know where that soldier was!
Wahhh! And I'm reporting you too, for being a crybaby.
What is true, from my experience in the military, unlike some cowards around here it seems, that the military tend to choose a rough image, they are supposed to be bad-asses after all.
And the iPhone seems so feminine, not trolling, it's true.
Thus it's likely that not many soldiers (males ones) will choose it over a Android phone.
Also the Android phone will allow certain, say OS alterations, that Apple won't allow due to their closed nature.
It's the 21st century, you chest-thumping troglodyte. Femininity and homosexuality do not automatically go hand-in-hand. And while stereotyped as such, the feminine gay male is far from an accurate depiction of your typical gay male--at least, in my experience.
Most gay guys I know are infinitely more athletic and capable of beating the hell out of someone than a straight guy in their age bracket. Just saying.
Meanwhile, back on topic, both OSes have their advantages. iPhone's is security, as others have pointed out; coupled with the ability to interface with the device via the proprietary port (is that what it's called, a port?) and you have some interesting possibilities. But the voice commands and systemwide malleability of Android is hard to deny.
Just hope the army realizes they'll need two developer teams now, rather than one. -_-
I need to join the army so I can collect all your tax dollars in the form of gizmos.
Wahhh! And I'm reporting you too, for being a crybaby and insulting my writing skills in the other thread where you started your problem and now pretending to take insult here too.
Back on topic...
What is true, from my experience in the military, unlike some cowards around here it seems, that the military tend to choose a rough image, they are supposed to be bad-asses after all.
And the iPhone seems so feminine, not trolling, it's true.
Thus it's likely that not many soldiers (males ones) will choose it over a Android phone.
Also the Android phone will allow certain, say OS alterations, that Apple won't allow due to their closed nature.
The recent poll was really a bunch of crap, you can take what you want from it but any man who is enticed by the "terminator"type advertising and needs the "manly" phone probably has other self esteem problems requiring help. When the shit hits the fan and bullets are flying by my head I want a phone that I can count on. Frankly, that's the iPhone.
It'd be cool if Apple could come up with a DoD model iPhone that had specific features for the military. Ruggedized, non-reflective glass to avoid soldier's position being given away, etc. At the very least a special military case would be needed for existing phone with water and dust-proof port covers. Pixel camo would be nice.
My point was that handicapped societies and governments around the world have specific requirements that are documented in great detail and somewhat inflexible. The government or institutional buyer is looking for various certifications and so forth. Tick-boxes, that have to be checked off for the purchase to go through.
While Android devices may, through some combination of programs and so forth, provide similar abilities, it isn't certain that they can and they are not, in general certified in that way. iPhone on the other hand passes all those certifications and was designed to do so years before it was even released. Apple thought ahead and made the iPhone the best, fully certified phone for the blind for example. I'm sure some blind people may get by with an Android phone, but the iPhone is an easier and more conforming choice.
Just answering your question.
I know of the VoiceOver software for iOS and OS X. I'm curious to what these disability certifications are that the iPhone has passed.
You would think the US Army would be interested in the security the iPhone offers over android.
Military Security?! That ship has sailed!!!
Wasn't it a military serviceman that provided Wikileaks with all the documentation, iPhone not included, of the State Dept. and others, that Wikileaks has been releasing in dribs and drabs to claim their 15 minutes of fame and might be on the next release of a Jib-Jab song.
Just saying there appears to be a lot of bureaucratic holes regarding operating procedures, that a phone, while nice, will not cure.
It'd be cool if Apple could come up with a DoD model iPhone that had specific features for the military. Ruggedized, non-reflective glass to avoid soldier's position being given away, etc. At the very least a special military case would be needed for existing phone with water and dust-proof port covers. Pixel camo would be nice.
Good idea and such a version would be good for outdoor activities such as hiking, boating etc. (and those image challenged males ).
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? (Don't answer, rhetorical question.)
I do NOT want my taxpayer dollars going to giving every kid in uniform a government subsidized tool for playing Angry Birds and checking his facebook account while he's supposed to be manning his post.
Not that there isn't a place for some of this technology in the battlefield, or in daily ops, there is; but only on dedicated locked-down hardware (that could be a iPhone with a locked down UI and other mods as mentioned by a previous poster). Not a fully open civilian smartphone with a subsidized calling plan.
Oh well, I guess we can just shovel a few more billion dollars on the national debt for something people feel entitled to that's only been around for ten seconds.
So what you're saying is that we need a third phone to add to the mix so that the childish, immature folks like yourself can be represented?
Mark needs to keep inflating his size, seriously doubt he's packing the requirements needed to sack up and join the army... besides he got a free Poodle os phone with his cell plan, now he's too busy with the mental gymnastics of defending his 'purchase'. smokey:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? (Don't answer, rhetorical question.)
I do NOT want my taxpayer dollars going to giving every kid in uniform a government subsidized tool for playing Angry Birds and checking his facebook account while he's supposed to be manning his post.
Not that there isn't a place for some of this technology in the battlefield, or in daily ops, there is; but only on dedicated locked-down hardware (that could be a iPhone with a locked down UI and other mods as mentioned by a previous poster). Not a fully open civilian smartphone with a subsidized calling plan.
Oh well, I guess we can just shovel a few more billion dollars on the national debt for something people feel entitled to that's only been around for ten seconds.
</rant>
I can't totally disagree especially the 'while on duty' comment. Look at the issue with train drivers but it is nothing to do with iPhones or whatever rather as you say, what is used, when and what for. Meanwhile along the same lines, the fact that Windows is allowed to be used in anything related to defense (or anything related to any essential infrastructure for that matter) makes me shudder.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? (Don't answer, rhetorical question.)
I do NOT want my taxpayer dollars going to giving every kid in uniform a government subsidized tool for playing Angry Birds and checking his facebook account while he's supposed to be manning his post.
Not that there isn't a place for some of this technology in the battlefield, or in daily ops, there is; but only on dedicated locked-down hardware (that could be a iPhone with a locked down UI and other mods as mentioned by a previous poster). Not a fully open civilian smartphone with a subsidized calling plan.
Oh well, I guess we can just shovel a few more billion dollars on the national debt for something people feel entitled to that's only been around for ten seconds.
</rant>
Entitled? If they are in the army, they are working for that pay. 'Entitled' applies only to those who don't do anything in return for a particular service.
Who cares if they can play Angry Birds on the same device that they can do their actual work on too? You might want to familiarize yourself with the type of work our soldiers do with computers these days before you expose your ignorance further.
Entitled? If they are in the army, they are working for that pay. 'Entitled' applies only to those who don't do anything in return for a particular service.
Who cares if they can play Angry Birds on the same device that they can do their actual work on too? You might want to familiarize yourself with the type of work our soldiers do with computers these days before you expose your ignorance further.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? (Don't answer, rhetorical question.)
I do NOT want my taxpayer dollars going to giving every kid in uniform a government subsidized tool for playing Angry Birds and checking his facebook account while he's supposed to be manning his post.
Not that there isn't a place for some of this technology in the battlefield, or in daily ops, there is; but only on dedicated locked-down hardware (that could be a iPhone with a locked down UI and other mods as mentioned by a previous poster). Not a fully open civilian smartphone with a subsidized calling plan.
Oh well, I guess we can just shovel a few more billion dollars on the national debt for something people feel entitled to that's only been around for ten seconds.
</rant>
Your right, because these "kids" are only willing to give their lives for this country. Why on earth would be give them a smartphone.
Comments
I find this really offensive and am reporting it as such.
Wahhh! And I'm reporting you too, for being a crybaby and insulting my writing skills in the other thread where you started your problem and now pretending to take insult here too.
Just add me to your "ignore list" if I bother you so, Professor. Bye!
Back on topic...
What is true, from my experience in the military, unlike some cowards around here it seems, that the military tend to choose a rough image, they are supposed to be bad-asses after all.
And the iPhone seems so feminine, not trolling, it's true.
Thus it's likely that not many soldiers (males ones) will choose it over a Android phone.
Also the Android phone will allow certain, say OS alterations, that Apple won't allow due to their closed nature.
Speak to it using the headset the soldier's already wearing? I don't think it would be too far-fetched to be able to tie in their headset somehow. From what I can tell, the speech recognition software is fairly accurate.
My point was that handicapped societies and governments around the world have specific requirements that are documented in great detail and somewhat inflexible. The government or institutional buyer is looking for various certifications and so forth. Tick-boxes, that have to be checked off for the purchase to go through.
While Android devices may, through some combination of programs and so forth, provide similar abilities, it isn't certain that they can and they are not, in general certified in that way. iPhone on the other hand passes all those certifications and was designed to do so years before it was even released. Apple thought ahead and made the iPhone the best, fully certified phone for the blind for example. I'm sure some blind people may get by with an Android phone, but the iPhone is an easier and more conforming choice.
WikiLeaks was my first thought as well. The current Find My Phone can brick a phone remotely, but what if a phone is lost or captured with its owner who knows the passwords before any of his colleagues find out? Security has a lot of ramifications that no doubt the military would have to work through.
BTW since when is the army about choice?
Wouldn't it be a lot cooler for the commander to say: here is your issued apple iPhone 4 with a camo bumper.
+1
Why would the army even allow troops to carry such an insecure product as the Android? Download the wrong app and the enemy could know where that soldier was!
Wahhh! And I'm reporting you too, for being a crybaby.
What is true, from my experience in the military, unlike some cowards around here it seems, that the military tend to choose a rough image, they are supposed to be bad-asses after all.
And the iPhone seems so feminine, not trolling, it's true.
Thus it's likely that not many soldiers (males ones) will choose it over a Android phone.
Also the Android phone will allow certain, say OS alterations, that Apple won't allow due to their closed nature.
It's the 21st century, you chest-thumping troglodyte. Femininity and homosexuality do not automatically go hand-in-hand. And while stereotyped as such, the feminine gay male is far from an accurate depiction of your typical gay male--at least, in my experience.
Most gay guys I know are infinitely more athletic and capable of beating the hell out of someone than a straight guy in their age bracket. Just saying.
Meanwhile, back on topic, both OSes have their advantages. iPhone's is security, as others have pointed out; coupled with the ability to interface with the device via the proprietary port (is that what it's called, a port?) and you have some interesting possibilities. But the voice commands and systemwide malleability of Android is hard to deny.
Just hope the army realizes they'll need two developer teams now, rather than one. -_-
I need to join the army so I can collect all your tax dollars in the form of gizmos.
Wahhh! And I'm reporting you too, for being a crybaby and insulting my writing skills in the other thread where you started your problem and now pretending to take insult here too.
Back on topic...
What is true, from my experience in the military, unlike some cowards around here it seems, that the military tend to choose a rough image, they are supposed to be bad-asses after all.
And the iPhone seems so feminine, not trolling, it's true.
Thus it's likely that not many soldiers (males ones) will choose it over a Android phone.
Also the Android phone will allow certain, say OS alterations, that Apple won't allow due to their closed nature.
The recent poll was really a bunch of crap, you can take what you want from it but any man who is enticed by the "terminator"type advertising and needs the "manly" phone probably has other self esteem problems requiring help. When the shit hits the fan and bullets are flying by my head I want a phone that I can count on. Frankly, that's the iPhone.
It's the 21st century, you chest-thumping troglodyte.
Partial quote.
Excellent summing up here
Seems the trog's posts have been removed.
My point was that handicapped societies and governments around the world have specific requirements that are documented in great detail and somewhat inflexible. The government or institutional buyer is looking for various certifications and so forth. Tick-boxes, that have to be checked off for the purchase to go through.
While Android devices may, through some combination of programs and so forth, provide similar abilities, it isn't certain that they can and they are not, in general certified in that way. iPhone on the other hand passes all those certifications and was designed to do so years before it was even released. Apple thought ahead and made the iPhone the best, fully certified phone for the blind for example. I'm sure some blind people may get by with an Android phone, but the iPhone is an easier and more conforming choice.
Just answering your question.
I know of the VoiceOver software for iOS and OS X. I'm curious to what these disability certifications are that the iPhone has passed.
You would think the US Army would be interested in the security the iPhone offers over android.
Military Security?! That ship has sailed!!!
Wasn't it a military serviceman that provided Wikileaks with all the documentation, iPhone not included, of the State Dept. and others, that Wikileaks has been releasing in dribs and drabs to claim their 15 minutes of fame and might be on the next release of a Jib-Jab song.
Just saying there appears to be a lot of bureaucratic holes regarding operating procedures, that a phone, while nice, will not cure.
It'd be cool if Apple could come up with a DoD model iPhone that had specific features for the military. Ruggedized, non-reflective glass to avoid soldier's position being given away, etc. At the very least a special military case would be needed for existing phone with water and dust-proof port covers. Pixel camo would be nice.
Good idea and such a version would be good for outdoor activities such as hiking, boating etc. (and those image challenged males
I do NOT want my taxpayer dollars going to giving every kid in uniform a government subsidized tool for playing Angry Birds and checking his facebook account while he's supposed to be manning his post.
Not that there isn't a place for some of this technology in the battlefield, or in daily ops, there is; but only on dedicated locked-down hardware (that could be a iPhone with a locked down UI and other mods as mentioned by a previous poster). Not a fully open civilian smartphone with a subsidized calling plan.
Oh well, I guess we can just shovel a few more billion dollars on the national debt for something people feel entitled to that's only been around for ten seconds.
</rant>
So what you're saying is that we need a third phone to add to the mix so that the childish, immature folks like yourself can be represented?
Mark needs to keep inflating his size, seriously doubt he's packing the requirements needed to sack up and join the army... besides he got a free Poodle os phone with his cell plan, now he's too busy with the mental gymnastics of defending his 'purchase'. smokey:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? (Don't answer, rhetorical question.)
I do NOT want my taxpayer dollars going to giving every kid in uniform a government subsidized tool for playing Angry Birds and checking his facebook account while he's supposed to be manning his post.
Not that there isn't a place for some of this technology in the battlefield, or in daily ops, there is; but only on dedicated locked-down hardware (that could be a iPhone with a locked down UI and other mods as mentioned by a previous poster). Not a fully open civilian smartphone with a subsidized calling plan.
Oh well, I guess we can just shovel a few more billion dollars on the national debt for something people feel entitled to that's only been around for ten seconds.
</rant>
I can't totally disagree especially the 'while on duty' comment. Look at the issue with train drivers but it is nothing to do with iPhones or whatever rather as you say, what is used, when and what for. Meanwhile along the same lines, the fact that Windows is allowed to be used in anything related to defense (or anything related to any essential infrastructure for that matter) makes me shudder.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? (Don't answer, rhetorical question.)
I do NOT want my taxpayer dollars going to giving every kid in uniform a government subsidized tool for playing Angry Birds and checking his facebook account while he's supposed to be manning his post.
Not that there isn't a place for some of this technology in the battlefield, or in daily ops, there is; but only on dedicated locked-down hardware (that could be a iPhone with a locked down UI and other mods as mentioned by a previous poster). Not a fully open civilian smartphone with a subsidized calling plan.
Oh well, I guess we can just shovel a few more billion dollars on the national debt for something people feel entitled to that's only been around for ten seconds.
</rant>
Entitled? If they are in the army, they are working for that pay. 'Entitled' applies only to those who don't do anything in return for a particular service.
Who cares if they can play Angry Birds on the same device that they can do their actual work on too? You might want to familiarize yourself with the type of work our soldiers do with computers these days before you expose your ignorance further.
Entitled? If they are in the army, they are working for that pay. 'Entitled' applies only to those who don't do anything in return for a particular service.
Who cares if they can play Angry Birds on the same device that they can do their actual work on too? You might want to familiarize yourself with the type of work our soldiers do with computers these days before you expose your ignorance further.
redacted
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? (Don't answer, rhetorical question.)
I do NOT want my taxpayer dollars going to giving every kid in uniform a government subsidized tool for playing Angry Birds and checking his facebook account while he's supposed to be manning his post.
Not that there isn't a place for some of this technology in the battlefield, or in daily ops, there is; but only on dedicated locked-down hardware (that could be a iPhone with a locked down UI and other mods as mentioned by a previous poster). Not a fully open civilian smartphone with a subsidized calling plan.
Oh well, I guess we can just shovel a few more billion dollars on the national debt for something people feel entitled to that's only been around for ten seconds.
</rant>
Your right, because these "kids" are only willing to give their lives for this country. Why on earth would be give them a smartphone.
That is my gun.
This one's for shooting,
The other's for fun!