I understand that today's society encourages us to tell everyone that they're special and smart and wonderful, even when they're not. I don't subscribe to that theory, however, and object to being labeled as arrogant because of it.
You're right. There are plenty of areas that I know next to nothing about. I am, however, smart enough to know that I don't know much about those areas, and so I ask questions if it's an area I plan to get into.
Your post is like suggesting that someone who doesn't know how to swim is not stupid for cliff jumping into the ocean.
There are things in life that, if you want to do them, you need to learn about them. If you want to drive a car, you must first learn how before unleashing yourself on the road. If you want to cliff-dive, it's a really good idea to find out about that swimmin' thing before you do it. To do otherwise would be stupid.
Your auto mechanic is actually a really good example to my point. I certainly am not suggesting that everyone who drives should learn how to fix their car. I am, however, suggesting that maybe reading the owners manual, especially the part where it says "get the oil changed every X miles to avoid engine damage" would be a really good idea. By your logic, someone who buys a car, doesn't change the oil for 50,000 miles, and then bitches that his car don't work no more, should be viewed as gifted. I reject that logic entirely.
And it's the same with technology. If you want to play with computers, then you need to learn a few basics. If you want to download tentacle porn apps for your phone, you should know how to check for basic permissions. Does tentacle porn need to read my contacts? Gee, why would tentacle porn need to know my whereabouts? Huh, tentacle porn wants permission to email people? I wonder why that could be.
If you get into a field that you don't know much about, and then get upset when you get burned because you couldn't be bothered to find out about it, then yes, you are a moron.
I think the "audiophiles" being referred to aren't the ones buying a demonstrably superior product, but the ones buying Monster HDMI cables for $80 instead of getting them for 8 bucks on Amazon. It's digital. It either works or it doesn't. The cable does nothing to change the audio quality unless the cable is broken.
"Audiophiles" who brag about buying Monster cable (and similar) don't know what they're talking about, and have more money than sense.
I'm not going to flame you because you're right. But you're also wrong: The closed iPhone store is a great advantage to have when you sell phones to morons. The "app store" for PCs and Macs has never been closed. People are either smart about what they install on their computer, or they install any random crap they see in a popup ad and find out what it's like to get a virus or a trojan.
I view smartphones as no different from PCs in that regard. The dumb users are going to install "cool sexy japanes walpapr!!" and other obvious malware, and then they're going to pay the price for being dumb. The smart users are going to check what permissions the app is grabbing, and then realize that a scientific calculator does not need to read your contacts or see your location, and not install it. In other words, even if you download Android malware, if you look at the permissions, you can recognize the malware as malware and decline to install it.
I'm not really a fan of the "short circuit Darwin" approach to consumer electronics in which developers try to anticipate any dumbassed thing some idiot might do with the device, and then build walls to prevent the dumbassery. (and to be fair, as the latest Mercedes commercials featuring drivers crediting the car for bailing them out from being idiot drivers demonstrates, it's not just in electronics). I'm more of a proponent of the idea that smart phones should live up to their name. Android phones are not meant for abject morons.
If Apple wants to market their phones to morons by basically saying "don't worry, we'll protect you from your own stupidity," that's up to them, but I don't think that necessitates a similar strategy in response from the Android camp. If you're basing a phone-buying decision on security, and you think you're too dumb to avoid installing hentai porn applications that end up jacking your phone, then buy an iPhone. If you think you're smart enough to handle elementary security dialogs, then get whichever phone you like better.
Just because the people in charge of your bonus are unreasonable does not suddenly mean that shipping the data off is suddenly reasonable. You might choose to make an unreasonable choice for personal financial gain, but from a data security standpoint, it's still unreasonable.
Far too many treat the University as a trade school.
That's my point. Well, one of them. Why wouldn't they treat the University as a trade school? The University pitches itself as a trade school. "Come here and you'll earn more money!" is the ad pitch, not "Come here and better yourself."
My friend, you did it wrong.
"Making an A" and "Learning" are two very different things.
No I didn't. I learned. I too "squeezed every drop" of learning I could get out of college. But that said, if I allowed my grades to suffer in order to "do it right," I'd have spent many thousands of dollars for an education that might better my understanding of various things, but would not further my career chances. See above; College as Trade School.
have you considered that you might have been wrong in disagreeing with his/her premises?
It would be intellectually dishonest of me to fail to consider that. However, when one is speaking of an interpretive rather than factual question, such as in a (heh) philosophy course, and one notices a pattern that every time an answer differs with the professor's opinion the grade goes down, one is forced to draw certain conclusions. We're not talking about physics (although I did have a physics prof who's information was out of date and who docked me on a test and refused to reconsider even though I brought him a recent peer-reviewed article that proved me right) or disagreeing on what 2+2 is here, we're talking about a system that gives (I promise you I'm not the only one to have experienced this) lip service to thinking for yourself, yet penalizes you if your self-thought does not mirror that of the instructor's. I'm delighted to see that you are not one of those professors, and in the interest of full disclosure, I had a good number of that kind of professor as well, however I doubt that you will deny that there are bad profs out there.
As for sour grapes, btw, my GPA in college was quite good, and I'm actually working in the career field for which I went to school. There are no sour grapes here regarding how my life turned out as a result of my college education. But there is some annoyance that the work I did to earn that diploma has been cheapened not only by flooding the market with literally millions of people with the same level of educational achievement as I have whether they needed it or not, but also by the overall lack of quality in education.
BTW go on a bit of a tangent here to discuss why I think the argument that "college taught me how to think and so it was good" is somewhat spurious. If so many people have college degrees, and college is so good at teaching us how to think, then why are we as a nation so short-sighted when it comes to interpreting communications? Ads trick us into thinking that a vibrating rod will melt the fat off, that a magnet will double our gas mileage, and that a magic pill that doctors won't tell us about will give us an enormous penis. Politicians say, with a straight face, that if we only give rich people a lot more money, they'll open up businesses selling products for which there is no demand and thusly strengthen the economy. We are told that global warming does not exist because it snowed in April. I could go on until I hit the post length buffer, but I think you get my point - Americans are not, as a rule, very good at critical thinking, and yet nearly a third of us have college degrees. How do you explain this disparity?
What I'm really getting at is that we need to stop looking down our nose at the guys in trade schools. For decades now the welders and pipefitters and anyone else that might be featured on Dirty Jobs have been considered to be beneath the white-collar fields. We need to realize as a society that there's nothing wrong with being a welder, nothing wrong with hard work, and nothing wrong with not having a 9-5 desk job.
As far as liberal education, I'm certainly not against it. I'm against colleges pitching English or Foreign Language or Theater as money-making degrees. For a long time now we've heard "go to college! You'll make more money! Oh, you wanna be a theater major? Cool, sign here!" when really we should be hearing "Go to college and major in something practical and you'll probably make more money! Oh, you wanna be a theater major? OK, but be aware that you're probably going to end up being a waiter."
The other end of that problem is that everyone has a college degree now, including intellectually incurious drones who have no business ever being near a college, and so the value of a degree is cheapened. Used to be that if you got a college degree you were pretty much guaranteed a good job driving a desk somewhere because the degree said something about you and your abilities. Now that everyone and his dog has one, that guarantee no longer exists.
And the offshoot problem is that employers are requiring college degrees for jobs that should never need a college degree. In my town there are a bunch of biotech jobs which require college degrees. These jobs consist of what is essentially factory work. Take chemical from beaker A and squirt it on test card B. Repeat. That kind of work requires about an hour's worth of training. A 4 year degree for such work is stupid.
And the flip side of that offshoot problem is that colleges are starting to require PhD's in order to teach an applied field. My alma mater requires all instructors to hold a doctorate. This means that Tom Brokaw cannot teach TV journalism, Steven Spielberg cannot teach film, and Bill Gates cannot teach business. That is monumentally stupid, especially when you realize that they don't particularly care what your doctorate is in. The chair of their journalism department holds a PhD in philosophy.
In short education, societal impressions of education, and the economy have all come together to collectively cheapen the economic value of higher education, and the degree-factory mentality of many schools has resulted in cheapening the intellectual value as well.
That's not to say that you can't get anything out of college anymore, but it is to say that not everyone can, and yet those who can't are expected to go there anyway.
Seems to me that "college is a waste of time" is an economic, not an anti-learning argument. Economically college can be a waste of time. How many English majors are out there making huge bucks vs how many of them are working at Home Depot? How many people got a degree in "web design" or some such fluffery in the 90's only to discover that, gee, there's not a huge market out there for such services.
If I'm going to end up working at McDonalds after I get my 4-year degree, then I might as well skip the degree and work at McDonalds 4 years early.
As for learning, dunno about the rest of you guys but my college education was largely an exercise in bullshit. Repeat what the professor said if you want an A. Disagree with his premises if you want an F. That's not learning. It's regurgitation. Parrots can do that too, and they don't attend college to do it.
And of course there's the student attitude side of "education" as well. A good number of my "getting educated" classmates liked to say stupid crap like "well I paid for the class and so the professor owes me an A." Those guys aren't there to learn. They're there to get a piece of paper that says they went to college. That piece of paper is worthless in and of itself. The value comes from either having learned something (and these guys pretty much limited their learning to the fluid dynamics of beer bongs) or from getting a job that you could not otherwise have gotten.
Well, you probably can't get that job in this economy anyway, and meanwhile manufacturing jobs are starting to open up, and remain open because companies can't find qualified welders etc. Economically speaking, currently anyway, it makes more sense for a lot of people to go to a trade school and learn how to weld than it does to go to a college and learn how to do something that they won't be able to do once they graduate.
That's not anti-intellectualism. It's anti-impracticality.
That's certainly how it should be, but that's not how corporations are viewed here. They're legally considered people (even though the legal justification for that is a bullshit throwaway line written by a corrupt asshole of a judicial clerk and should have no legal standing)
Recent supreme court decisions have found that corporations enjoy human rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to donate to political campaigns. They're basically people who can't die, and who have no morality because their only function is to make as much money as possible.
It's screwed up, but that's the way it is right now.
Exactly. At best it'll get people who play Sony's crappy MMO's or on PSN to buy gift cards at Walmart instead of giving Sony their credit card directly. Sony still gets the money, and their customers get screwed and inconvenienced whenever they want to buy something.
More effective? How do you figure? Now the kids have peoples' credit cards, and a whole shitload of people have to get new cards and take other steps to avoid being wiped out. These dipshits are punishing Sony's customers more than Sony.
At this point it's the schoolyard bully syndrome. One bully beats up the rich kid and suddenly 6 others run over to kick him in the head while he's on the ground. It's debatable whether any of the new arrivals give a damn about the purported causes of the original hack. Sony's on the ropes from a security standpoint, and it sure is fun to keep punching.
That said, I have difficulty mustering up much sympathy for Sony, because it is possible to secure a network so that it is not as wildly hackable as Sony's apparently is. Lockheed proved that a couple weeks ago when hackers who were doubtless employed by foreign governments tried to get in to their systems, and got absolutely nothing. That one of the Sony hacks (I've forgotten which one now - I can't keep them all straight anymore) was apparently pulled off by entering code into a database field is pretty clear evidence that Sony isn't taking security very seriously.
In my opinion, companies that request and store customer data which could lead to identity theft should be required by law to properly protect that data. And if they can't do it, they should be prohibited by law from having a business presence in this country for a set amount of time. You want my credit card number, you'd better damn well put it in a (virtual) hardened vault and not let anyone get to it.
Why not? solar cells on the quad core might not eliminate the need to charge the battery, but they'd certainly stretch the battery life between charges.
I wonder if case makers will respond by making a clear window in laptop bags so the laptop can charge when you're carrying it around.
No. The phone was slightly slow before I installed it, and it's slightly slow now. But it's an original Droid, and I tend to run more crap on it than it's capable of running comfortably, so that's to be expected. Lookout caused no noticeable performance issues.
Quite true, which is why I make sure to carefully check what permissions the app wants. A calculator doesn't need to use the phone. If a calculator wants to use the phone, I know they're up to something beyond the scope of what I want the app to do.
I run lookout too, and it's already saved me a few hundred dollars by nicely telling me exactly where in the nature preserve the damn phone had fallen off of my belt, and then setting off a siren when I got close so that I could find it under the plants. If only for that reason, it's a worthwhile app to have around.
Of course, looking at that list, who the hell sees an app like "sexy japanese" or "sex sounds" and doesn't assume there's probably malware of some sort in there?
Why would you want to launch from a sea platform that's rocking around in the waves? Why not launch from land somewhere? If he has enough money to build a sea platform, a submarine, and a rocket, then he has enough money to buy land on an island somewhere that has no FAA and no rules about what you can and can't launch out of your back yard. Anyone have insight?
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that today's society encourages us to tell everyone that they're special and smart and wonderful, even when they're not. I don't subscribe to that theory, however, and object to being labeled as arrogant because of it.
You're right. There are plenty of areas that I know next to nothing about. I am, however, smart enough to know that I don't know much about those areas, and so I ask questions if it's an area I plan to get into.
Your post is like suggesting that someone who doesn't know how to swim is not stupid for cliff jumping into the ocean.
There are things in life that, if you want to do them, you need to learn about them. If you want to drive a car, you must first learn how before unleashing yourself on the road. If you want to cliff-dive, it's a really good idea to find out about that swimmin' thing before you do it. To do otherwise would be stupid.
Your auto mechanic is actually a really good example to my point. I certainly am not suggesting that everyone who drives should learn how to fix their car. I am, however, suggesting that maybe reading the owners manual, especially the part where it says "get the oil changed every X miles to avoid engine damage" would be a really good idea. By your logic, someone who buys a car, doesn't change the oil for 50,000 miles, and then bitches that his car don't work no more, should be viewed as gifted. I reject that logic entirely.
And it's the same with technology. If you want to play with computers, then you need to learn a few basics. If you want to download tentacle porn apps for your phone, you should know how to check for basic permissions. Does tentacle porn need to read my contacts? Gee, why would tentacle porn need to know my whereabouts? Huh, tentacle porn wants permission to email people? I wonder why that could be.
If you get into a field that you don't know much about, and then get upset when you get burned because you couldn't be bothered to find out about it, then yes, you are a moron.
I think the "audiophiles" being referred to aren't the ones buying a demonstrably superior product, but the ones buying Monster HDMI cables for $80 instead of getting them for 8 bucks on Amazon. It's digital. It either works or it doesn't. The cable does nothing to change the audio quality unless the cable is broken.
"Audiophiles" who brag about buying Monster cable (and similar) don't know what they're talking about, and have more money than sense.
I'm not going to flame you because you're right. But you're also wrong:
The closed iPhone store is a great advantage to have when you sell phones to morons. The "app store" for PCs and Macs has never been closed. People are either smart about what they install on their computer, or they install any random crap they see in a popup ad and find out what it's like to get a virus or a trojan.
I view smartphones as no different from PCs in that regard. The dumb users are going to install "cool sexy japanes walpapr!!" and other obvious malware, and then they're going to pay the price for being dumb. The smart users are going to check what permissions the app is grabbing, and then realize that a scientific calculator does not need to read your contacts or see your location, and not install it. In other words, even if you download Android malware, if you look at the permissions, you can recognize the malware as malware and decline to install it.
I'm not really a fan of the "short circuit Darwin" approach to consumer electronics in which developers try to anticipate any dumbassed thing some idiot might do with the device, and then build walls to prevent the dumbassery. (and to be fair, as the latest Mercedes commercials featuring drivers crediting the car for bailing them out from being idiot drivers demonstrates, it's not just in electronics). I'm more of a proponent of the idea that smart phones should live up to their name. Android phones are not meant for abject morons.
If Apple wants to market their phones to morons by basically saying "don't worry, we'll protect you from your own stupidity," that's up to them, but I don't think that necessitates a similar strategy in response from the Android camp. If you're basing a phone-buying decision on security, and you think you're too dumb to avoid installing hentai porn applications that end up jacking your phone, then buy an iPhone. If you think you're smart enough to handle elementary security dialogs, then get whichever phone you like better.
Just because the people in charge of your bonus are unreasonable does not suddenly mean that shipping the data off is suddenly reasonable. You might choose to make an unreasonable choice for personal financial gain, but from a data security standpoint, it's still unreasonable.
Your post fails to consider the completely reasonable choice of not handing your data off to a third party in the first place. . .
Is that why they called it Warp? ;)
Because I can't wait to get fingerprints all over my monitor. . .
It was a spectrum. I had some really good profs. I had some really awful profs. Most fell somewhere in between, as would be expected.
You missed my point entirely.
A state university system in the upper-midwest. Yes, it's accredited. Yes, I have a liberal arts degree.
Better?
Far too many treat the University as a trade school.
That's my point. Well, one of them. Why wouldn't they treat the University as a trade school? The University pitches itself as a trade school. "Come here and you'll earn more money!" is the ad pitch, not "Come here and better yourself."
My friend, you did it wrong.
"Making an A" and "Learning" are two very different things.
No I didn't. I learned. I too "squeezed every drop" of learning I could get out of college. But that said, if I allowed my grades to suffer in order to "do it right," I'd have spent many thousands of dollars for an education that might better my understanding of various things, but would not further my career chances. See above; College as Trade School.
have you considered that you might have been wrong in disagreeing with his/her premises?
It would be intellectually dishonest of me to fail to consider that. However, when one is speaking of an interpretive rather than factual question, such as in a (heh) philosophy course, and one notices a pattern that every time an answer differs with the professor's opinion the grade goes down, one is forced to draw certain conclusions. We're not talking about physics (although I did have a physics prof who's information was out of date and who docked me on a test and refused to reconsider even though I brought him a recent peer-reviewed article that proved me right) or disagreeing on what 2+2 is here, we're talking about a system that gives (I promise you I'm not the only one to have experienced this) lip service to thinking for yourself, yet penalizes you if your self-thought does not mirror that of the instructor's. I'm delighted to see that you are not one of those professors, and in the interest of full disclosure, I had a good number of that kind of professor as well, however I doubt that you will deny that there are bad profs out there.
As for sour grapes, btw, my GPA in college was quite good, and I'm actually working in the career field for which I went to school. There are no sour grapes here regarding how my life turned out as a result of my college education. But there is some annoyance that the work I did to earn that diploma has been cheapened not only by flooding the market with literally millions of people with the same level of educational achievement as I have whether they needed it or not, but also by the overall lack of quality in education.
BTW go on a bit of a tangent here to discuss why I think the argument that "college taught me how to think and so it was good" is somewhat spurious. If so many people have college degrees, and college is so good at teaching us how to think, then why are we as a nation so short-sighted when it comes to interpreting communications? Ads trick us into thinking that a vibrating rod will melt the fat off, that a magnet will double our gas mileage, and that a magic pill that doctors won't tell us about will give us an enormous penis. Politicians say, with a straight face, that if we only give rich people a lot more money, they'll open up businesses selling products for which there is no demand and thusly strengthen the economy. We are told that global warming does not exist because it snowed in April. I could go on until I hit the post length buffer, but I think you get my point - Americans are not, as a rule, very good at critical thinking, and yet nearly a third of us have college degrees. How do you explain this disparity?
What I'm really getting at is that we need to stop looking down our nose at the guys in trade schools. For decades now the welders and pipefitters and anyone else that might be featured on Dirty Jobs have been considered to be beneath the white-collar fields. We need to realize as a society that there's nothing wrong with being a welder, nothing wrong with hard work, and nothing wrong with not having a 9-5 desk job.
As far as liberal education, I'm certainly not against it. I'm against colleges pitching English or Foreign Language or Theater as money-making degrees. For a long time now we've heard "go to college! You'll make more money! Oh, you wanna be a theater major? Cool, sign here!" when really we should be hearing "Go to college and major in something practical and you'll probably make more money! Oh, you wanna be a theater major? OK, but be aware that you're probably going to end up being a waiter."
The other end of that problem is that everyone has a college degree now, including intellectually incurious drones who have no business ever being near a college, and so the value of a degree is cheapened. Used to be that if you got a college degree you were pretty much guaranteed a good job driving a desk somewhere because the degree said something about you and your abilities. Now that everyone and his dog has one, that guarantee no longer exists.
And the offshoot problem is that employers are requiring college degrees for jobs that should never need a college degree. In my town there are a bunch of biotech jobs which require college degrees. These jobs consist of what is essentially factory work. Take chemical from beaker A and squirt it on test card B. Repeat. That kind of work requires about an hour's worth of training. A 4 year degree for such work is stupid.
And the flip side of that offshoot problem is that colleges are starting to require PhD's in order to teach an applied field. My alma mater requires all instructors to hold a doctorate. This means that Tom Brokaw cannot teach TV journalism, Steven Spielberg cannot teach film, and Bill Gates cannot teach business. That is monumentally stupid, especially when you realize that they don't particularly care what your doctorate is in. The chair of their journalism department holds a PhD in philosophy.
In short education, societal impressions of education, and the economy have all come together to collectively cheapen the economic value of higher education, and the degree-factory mentality of many schools has resulted in cheapening the intellectual value as well.
That's not to say that you can't get anything out of college anymore, but it is to say that not everyone can, and yet those who can't are expected to go there anyway.
I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you saying it's OK for liberal arts to be taught that way?
Seems to me that "college is a waste of time" is an economic, not an anti-learning argument. Economically college can be a waste of time. How many English majors are out there making huge bucks vs how many of them are working at Home Depot? How many people got a degree in "web design" or some such fluffery in the 90's only to discover that, gee, there's not a huge market out there for such services.
If I'm going to end up working at McDonalds after I get my 4-year degree, then I might as well skip the degree and work at McDonalds 4 years early.
As for learning, dunno about the rest of you guys but my college education was largely an exercise in bullshit. Repeat what the professor said if you want an A. Disagree with his premises if you want an F. That's not learning. It's regurgitation. Parrots can do that too, and they don't attend college to do it.
And of course there's the student attitude side of "education" as well. A good number of my "getting educated" classmates liked to say stupid crap like "well I paid for the class and so the professor owes me an A." Those guys aren't there to learn. They're there to get a piece of paper that says they went to college. That piece of paper is worthless in and of itself. The value comes from either having learned something (and these guys pretty much limited their learning to the fluid dynamics of beer bongs) or from getting a job that you could not otherwise have gotten.
Well, you probably can't get that job in this economy anyway, and meanwhile manufacturing jobs are starting to open up, and remain open because companies can't find qualified welders etc. Economically speaking, currently anyway, it makes more sense for a lot of people to go to a trade school and learn how to weld than it does to go to a college and learn how to do something that they won't be able to do once they graduate.
That's not anti-intellectualism. It's anti-impracticality.
That's certainly how it should be, but that's not how corporations are viewed here. They're legally considered people (even though the legal justification for that is a bullshit throwaway line written by a corrupt asshole of a judicial clerk and should have no legal standing)
Recent supreme court decisions have found that corporations enjoy human rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to donate to political campaigns. They're basically people who can't die, and who have no morality because their only function is to make as much money as possible.
It's screwed up, but that's the way it is right now.
Exactly. At best it'll get people who play Sony's crappy MMO's or on PSN to buy gift cards at Walmart instead of giving Sony their credit card directly. Sony still gets the money, and their customers get screwed and inconvenienced whenever they want to buy something.
More effective? How do you figure? Now the kids have peoples' credit cards, and a whole shitload of people have to get new cards and take other steps to avoid being wiped out. These dipshits are punishing Sony's customers more than Sony.
At this point it's the schoolyard bully syndrome. One bully beats up the rich kid and suddenly 6 others run over to kick him in the head while he's on the ground. It's debatable whether any of the new arrivals give a damn about the purported causes of the original hack. Sony's on the ropes from a security standpoint, and it sure is fun to keep punching.
That said, I have difficulty mustering up much sympathy for Sony, because it is possible to secure a network so that it is not as wildly hackable as Sony's apparently is. Lockheed proved that a couple weeks ago when hackers who were doubtless employed by foreign governments tried to get in to their systems, and got absolutely nothing. That one of the Sony hacks (I've forgotten which one now - I can't keep them all straight anymore) was apparently pulled off by entering code into a database field is pretty clear evidence that Sony isn't taking security very seriously.
In my opinion, companies that request and store customer data which could lead to identity theft should be required by law to properly protect that data. And if they can't do it, they should be prohibited by law from having a business presence in this country for a set amount of time. You want my credit card number, you'd better damn well put it in a (virtual) hardened vault and not let anyone get to it.
Why not? solar cells on the quad core might not eliminate the need to charge the battery, but they'd certainly stretch the battery life between charges.
I wonder if case makers will respond by making a clear window in laptop bags so the laptop can charge when you're carrying it around.
No. The phone was slightly slow before I installed it, and it's slightly slow now. But it's an original Droid, and I tend to run more crap on it than it's capable of running comfortably, so that's to be expected. Lookout caused no noticeable performance issues.
Quite true, which is why I make sure to carefully check what permissions the app wants. A calculator doesn't need to use the phone. If a calculator wants to use the phone, I know they're up to something beyond the scope of what I want the app to do.
I run lookout too, and it's already saved me a few hundred dollars by nicely telling me exactly where in the nature preserve the damn phone had fallen off of my belt, and then setting off a siren when I got close so that I could find it under the plants. If only for that reason, it's a worthwhile app to have around.
Of course, looking at that list, who the hell sees an app like "sexy japanese" or "sex sounds" and doesn't assume there's probably malware of some sort in there?
This had to be explained on a site like /.? ;)
Why would you want to launch from a sea platform that's rocking around in the waves? Why not launch from land somewhere? If he has enough money to build a sea platform, a submarine, and a rocket, then he has enough money to buy land on an island somewhere that has no FAA and no rules about what you can and can't launch out of your back yard. Anyone have insight?