The ability to ditch your wireless phone and use your existing mobile phone (provided it has GSM) as well as use the service without dedicating a computer to the task. Basically, when you walk in the house and walk past the femtocell your mobile phone re-syncs to the femtocelll and now you are no longer using your wireless carrier but Magic Jack for service. When you leave the house your phone reconnects to your mobile carrier. Why do you need this? You may not but there is still a large enough constituency that have limited anytime minutes who would find this wonderful. Especially if they consistently go over their minutes.
I'm sure this will eventually adapt to the new wireless paradigm eventually but for some services I have they REQUIRE a landline (home phone) before they will let you sign up for service. I would have to go back and look to remember which services in particular but I think my natural gas provider had this requirement. It's probably not as much an issue for apartment/condo dwellers since the landlord would handle those contracts.
Many have them to ensure 911 service knows how to find you. An address on file with the 911 service is still more reliable (in most cases) than the GPS on a mobile phone. This too will probably become less of an issue as technology improves.
Is it really that much better and more convenient than WiFi? When I am in my house, I press the Internet calling icon on my phone and it connects to my VoIP provider's server via SIP.
For starters it will work for ANY GSM phone. It doesn't matter if it has WiFi or not. Second, it's cheaper than your VOIP provider unless your VOIP provider can beat $1.70 mo.
I have been using T-Mobile's @Home service for the past year ($10 month as a third line) and it's been extremely reliable. I didn't like Magic Jack because I needed a computer and their software on it to have phone service at home. If this thing works as advertised I just may pull the trigger.
"The encrypted data packets sent through BlackBerry are password protected and could be deciphered only with the help of "Public Key" and "Private Key" together. The other provision is to build a super computer, which could take nearly three years and the results beyond a certain frequency were not guaranteed.
So yeah they "helped" the Indian government snoop but hardly gave them a master key.
I don't disagree with what you are saying but you are referencing things that have only been viable in the last year or so. Android is in its infancy and Microsoft just recently got their Mobile guys and Exchange guys to talk to each other. Given it takes a large company 3 years to DECIDE on what to implement and another 2 years to actually implement it you begin to understand why those options haven't been introduced into many large scale operations. I still don't know of any other mobile communication device (outside of the NSA) that implements hardware encryption like Blackberries do. Apple introduced encryption on the 3Gs but it was cracked about fifteen minutes after it was announced if memory serves. I fully expect RIM to lose market share this year but I would not count them out just yet.
I doubt this is Google's business offering. They know it will take much more to crack that nut. In the meantime they can sell this to the masses to increase interest in a business class device.
I increasingly hear this question from both my IT peers and users alike "Why does our company stick with Blackberry when phone XYZ is so much better?" The long and the short of it is SECURITY. I mean when India insisted RIM provide them with a back door so they could spy on BB users RIM's response was "We don't even have a back door". I would love to see a smartphone come out with all of the security features RIM has had for years so I could offer it to the Executive VP instead of telling him "I'm sorry but since you receive strictly private emails you are not allowed to use anything but a Blackberry" and having him start making calls and ultimately buying it on his expense account connecting it to the network in rogue fashion.
I still disagree with your point and you evidently did not understand mine. I didn't say anything about a GUI. I made reference to Desktop Publishing which was ignited by the introduction of the Apple LaserWriter printer and Aldus (now part of Adobe) PageMaker.
I think the Internet as it was known pre-HTTP would have remained an education/business only tool for it's foreseeable future because there simply wasn't anything compelling to the average individual. You seem to believe (based on your post) that you represent the average individual with regard to technology which simply is not the case. I doubt many if any average individuals frequent/. and if they did they would be lost in a good part of the conversations. If you ask the average person what the Internet is a high percentage of the time you will hear the same thing "it's the blue e on my screen". Sit them down at a GNU/KDE desktop and watch them hunt for the "blue e" which is why no matter what browser I set up for my clients I usually change the icon to the "blue e" and rename the shortcut "Internet".
As far as CompuServe and Giff they basically unleashed a Trojan horse when Unisys claimed patent and insisted on licensing fees. That ensured that a free replacement (PNG) was developed.
"I would argue it was the simplicity of HTTP and how easy it was to create an implementation of the standard that made HTTP catch on and work so well."
You say that like it's a bad thing. I started using HTTP in 1993 on the original Mosaic 1.0 It was evident even right away the potential this tech held.
The "Web" had nothing to do with the expansion of the internet other than providing a "killer app" that most ordinary people would be willing to use.
That's like saying desktop publishing had nothing to do with Apple becoming the De facto standard for graphic designers in the 80's other than providing a "killer app" that designer's would be willing to use. While the Internet was well on it's way to a bright future to say HTTP had nothing to do with it's success is just plain denial.
The internet is based on ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) a military research project to use packet switching over a network instead of circuit switching. I doubt they envisioned it becoming so innocuous. It wasn't until Tim Berners-Lee introduced HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) and subsequently released it royalty free that the Internet's World Wide Web was born. And the rest, as they say, is history. This "new" internet initiative is probably to try and put the genie back in the bottle.
I enjoyed Avatar but was extremely underwhelmed. Sherlock Holmes was actually able to keep me guessing until the very end which I rather enjoyed for a change. I don't like Jason Lee so no chipmunks for me.
It's all part of the Political Correctness movement. It started by convincing people certain words (gay, fagot, indian, handicapped, etc.) were at their very core evil (they use the word hateful because the word evil is also evil). It so happens I read the best definition of PC I have ever heard today. It was the winning submission to an annual contest (2007 if sources are accurate) Texas A&M holds to define popular terminology. It defines Political Correctness as:
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
This story is kinda like getting arrested for yelling FIRE in a crowded parking lot full of empty cars next to a movie theater full of people.
Wait...if being offtopic IS the topic then posting on topic is offtopic as well as posting offtopic. So how does one get modded offtopic when EVERYTHING is on offtopic?
I just read a post on Facebook by an Air traffic controller I know. They had to e-mail or fax all icao flight plans to the FAA. The FAA manually typed in every flight plan for every flight in the country.
Very good question. It's so good ERCOT asked it themselves and the first fruits of that discussion have already started coming on line. The problem is construction of those new lines will take time and the growth spurt of West Texas Wind the last few years has overwhelmed the existing grid.
Slashdot Mirror
The ability to ditch your wireless phone and use your existing mobile phone (provided it has GSM) as well as use the service without dedicating a computer to the task. Basically, when you walk in the house and walk past the femtocell your mobile phone re-syncs to the femtocelll and now you are no longer using your wireless carrier but Magic Jack for service. When you leave the house your phone reconnects to your mobile carrier. Why do you need this? You may not but there is still a large enough constituency that have limited anytime minutes who would find this wonderful. Especially if they consistently go over their minutes.
I'm sure this will eventually adapt to the new wireless paradigm eventually but for some services I have they REQUIRE a landline (home phone) before they will let you sign up for service. I would have to go back and look to remember which services in particular but I think my natural gas provider had this requirement. It's probably not as much an issue for apartment/condo dwellers since the landlord would handle those contracts.
Many have them to ensure 911 service knows how to find you. An address on file with the 911 service is still more reliable (in most cases) than the GPS on a mobile phone. This too will probably become less of an issue as technology improves.
Is it really that much better and more convenient than WiFi? When I am in my house, I press the Internet calling icon on my phone and it connects to my VoIP provider's server via SIP.
For starters it will work for ANY GSM phone. It doesn't matter if it has WiFi or not. Second, it's cheaper than your VOIP provider unless your VOIP provider can beat $1.70 mo.
I have been using T-Mobile's @Home service for the past year ($10 month as a third line) and it's been extremely reliable. I didn't like Magic Jack because I needed a computer and their software on it to have phone service at home. If this thing works as advertised I just may pull the trigger.
Thanks, for some reason Google failed me. But it would probably be better to direct to the actual article rather than a tech blog about the article...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/RIM_agrees_to_pass_BlackBerry_content_on_condition/rssarticleshow/3056271.cms
from the article:
"The encrypted data packets sent through BlackBerry are password protected and could be deciphered only with the help of "Public Key" and "Private Key" together. The other provision is to build a super computer, which could take nearly three years and the results beyond a certain frequency were not guaranteed.
So yeah they "helped" the Indian government snoop but hardly gave them a master key.
I don't disagree with what you are saying but you are referencing things that have only been viable in the last year or so. Android is in its infancy and Microsoft just recently got their Mobile guys and Exchange guys to talk to each other. Given it takes a large company 3 years to DECIDE on what to implement and another 2 years to actually implement it you begin to understand why those options haven't been introduced into many large scale operations. I still don't know of any other mobile communication device (outside of the NSA) that implements hardware encryption like Blackberries do. Apple introduced encryption on the 3Gs but it was cracked about fifteen minutes after it was announced if memory serves. I fully expect RIM to lose market share this year but I would not count them out just yet.
I doubt this is Google's business offering. They know it will take much more to crack that nut. In the meantime they can sell this to the masses to increase interest in a business class device.
I increasingly hear this question from both my IT peers and users alike "Why does our company stick with Blackberry when phone XYZ is so much better?" The long and the short of it is SECURITY. I mean when India insisted RIM provide them with a back door so they could spy on BB users RIM's response was "We don't even have a back door". I would love to see a smartphone come out with all of the security features RIM has had for years so I could offer it to the Executive VP instead of telling him "I'm sorry but since you receive strictly private emails you are not allowed to use anything but a Blackberry" and having him start making calls and ultimately buying it on his expense account connecting it to the network in rogue fashion.
I still disagree with your point and you evidently did not understand mine. I didn't say anything about a GUI. I made reference to Desktop Publishing which was ignited by the introduction of the Apple LaserWriter printer and Aldus (now part of Adobe) PageMaker.
I think the Internet as it was known pre-HTTP would have remained an education/business only tool for it's foreseeable future because there simply wasn't anything compelling to the average individual. You seem to believe (based on your post) that you represent the average individual with regard to technology which simply is not the case. I doubt many if any average individuals frequent /. and if they did they would be lost in a good part of the conversations. If you ask the average person what the Internet is a high percentage of the time you will hear the same thing "it's the blue e on my screen". Sit them down at a GNU/KDE desktop and watch them hunt for the "blue e" which is why no matter what browser I set up for my clients I usually change the icon to the "blue e" and rename the shortcut "Internet".
As far as CompuServe and Giff they basically unleashed a Trojan horse when Unisys claimed patent and insisted on licensing fees. That ensured that a free replacement (PNG) was developed.
"I would argue it was the simplicity of HTTP and how easy it was to create an implementation of the standard that made HTTP catch on and work so well."
You say that like it's a bad thing. I started using HTTP in 1993 on the original Mosaic 1.0 It was evident even right away the potential this tech held.
The "Web" had nothing to do with the expansion of the internet other than providing a "killer app" that most ordinary people would be willing to use.
That's like saying desktop publishing had nothing to do with Apple becoming the De facto standard for graphic designers in the 80's other than providing a "killer app" that designer's would be willing to use. While the Internet was well on it's way to a bright future to say HTTP had nothing to do with it's success is just plain denial.
So...it isn't a distribution of Linux like "Cloud Computing" isn't a fancy term for client/server or thin client computing...Gotcha!
..."Adobe Flash support, Android or Linux OS."
Isn't Android just a mobile distribution of Linux?
The internet is based on ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) a military research project to use packet switching over a network instead of circuit switching. I doubt they envisioned it becoming so innocuous. It wasn't until Tim Berners-Lee introduced HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) and subsequently released it royalty free that the Internet's World Wide Web was born. And the rest, as they say, is history. This "new" internet initiative is probably to try and put the genie back in the bottle.
I enjoyed Avatar but was extremely underwhelmed. Sherlock Holmes was actually able to keep me guessing until the very end which I rather enjoyed for a change. I don't like Jason Lee so no chipmunks for me.
It's all part of the Political Correctness movement. It started by convincing people certain words (gay, fagot, indian, handicapped, etc.) were at their very core evil (they use the word hateful because the word evil is also evil). It so happens I read the best definition of PC I have ever heard today. It was the winning submission to an annual contest (2007 if sources are accurate) Texas A&M holds to define popular terminology. It defines Political Correctness as:
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream
media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end."
This story is kinda like getting arrested for yelling FIRE in a crowded parking lot full of empty cars next to a movie theater full of people.
1) unsubstantiated abstract factoid - check /. anti-establishmentarianism - check
2) pander to
3) car analogy - check
Profit!
Spoken like a true eBay shareholder.
Take it to a local field with a buddy
Set up a camera
Film yourself bashing it to bits
Upload to internet
Profit
Wait...if being offtopic IS the topic then posting on topic is offtopic as well as posting offtopic. So how does one get modded offtopic when EVERYTHING is on offtopic?
It's nice to see they decided to forgo the cryptic error messages and offer the goth crowd a nice abyss to stare into.
I don't know...I suspect there are a few Nigerian aristocrats who might like to have a go at him.
I believe it was the "n/t" that merited the Troll mod. I know I was incensed.
The Atom is not certified for use in space. It uses a 486.
*WHOOOOSH*
I just read a post on Facebook by an Air traffic controller I know. They had to e-mail or fax all icao flight plans to the FAA. The FAA manually typed in every flight plan for every flight in the country.
When I read the post the first image I got was John Hodgman saying 'Trust me, this time it's going to be different'.
All you need to do is give them one of these.
WHY DON'T WE GET SOME DAMN POWER LINES FIRST!!!!
Very good question. It's so good ERCOT asked it themselves and the first fruits of that discussion have already started coming on line. The problem is construction of those new lines will take time and the growth spurt of West Texas Wind the last few years has overwhelmed the existing grid.
Disclaimer: I work for Nextera Energy Resources (formerly FPL Energy)