Google| Subject | Re: Adobe's Low hanging .... ? |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 2014-07-15 11:12 (2014-07-15 21:12) |
| Message-ID | <4gr9s9pf5iboqhkeangn78v41ccun5qb99@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (6h & 1m) > Eric Stevens PeterN (7h & 17m) |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:53:49 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospamYou really have difficulty in expressing what you mean. You previously wrote "a cloud outage might be annoying, but the data won't be lost" when you really meant a cloud outage might be annoying, but the data won't be lost as it should be stored in a copy else where.
In article <lq1tgl01q83@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:nospamPeterNEric Stevensnospam
I was pointing out that there are unique risks associated with phones and that they are less secure storage for data than laptops.
the only risk is for theft.
otherwise, they're *more* secure since there are no moving parts to fail.
Which model of any smart phone has no moving parts?
all of them.
buttons and switches do not count since those do not store data and even if one fails, the data is intact.
you really have no clue, do you?
Now you say smartphones are "*more* secure since there are no moving parts to fail" when you really meant smartphones are *more* secure since there are no moving parts to fail except buttons and switches which do not store data.
Are you really saying that it is not possible for the failure of a button or switch to cause the loss of data? You will have to be very brave to say that: just because you don't know or can't think of an example doesn't mean it can't happen.
Haw. Who believes that? --nospamthey're also smaller and easier to hide.PeterN
And lose.
no.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
2014-07-10-
