If Apple (where Tim Cook, interim leader of Apple, has been outed as gay) removes this App for gay bashing, then all the religious apps will need to be removed to satisfy the atheists, "sexy" male oriented apps removed for the feminists and vice versa (although straight males seem to have an attachment to lesbian sexuality), and so on until the PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals, oh no, the first amendment died that day and that other PETA won in court), well those guys demand all the animal cruelty Apps be removed (i.e., it has an animal image therefore encourages animal exploitation. So no more Penguin Catapult or Angry Birds will remain. All in All after everyone is done objecting the Apple "App Store"(tm) will look as barren as the Microsoft Windows Phone 7 phone Applet Market.
Stop the political correctness overreaching because they're well beyond the point of affecting my individual rights. It is equal protection under the law, not the orwellian equal protection for all but some are more equal than others...
This is a bad decision.This is the wrong direction. Approve.kids as a TLD..xxx only creates a percieved value that the rest of the Internet is safe. But local regulations and laws vary so much it will never be able to be enforced. And on top of that you have created a gold mine where the registrar of.xxx can charge whatever the want, domains will have conflicts registering in the one.xxx tld where in the rest of the Internet they have the same mark for different organizations in.net and.com, etc.
By having a.kids domain the registrar can be held liable for policing the registrations they allow. And you simply limit the kids to.kids TLD. That does force major sites to have a kid safe version of representative content. Of course, again, laws vary worldwide on whats acceptable.
The most responsible action would be for parents to take control and responsibility for their kids actions on the Internet. It is not too tough. And it is their role to guide their child's development.
To pass this to government is akin to "It takes a village to raise an idiot."
< Ad hominium debate attack="follows" >
Perhaps it can be attributed to the ICANN not understanding sex as a business, or, well, sex at all...
< / Ad Hominum debate >
I am a Direct TV subscriber since near the beginning. (Viacom messed up too many times and I canceled, as they were disconnecting on the pole, coincidence was with me and I chatted to the guy saying I was dissatisfied. he said well, there is our cable comany, then there is yours, with a smirk. I pulled out the Direct TV receiver boxes and said I had already chosen mine... He'd not seen a direct broadcast sat dish yet. I told him it was about 1 hour to set up. He seemed not happy.)
But I digress due to old man syndrome (in my day we tied an onion to our belt as was the fashion of the day... no wait) When Comcast came around and hooked up our Internet, they tried to sell us the cable TV package as well, but I said I was happy with DTV. Well, a few days later and about once a year since, Comcast has offered me free basic cable because we have a business Internet connection. They reason I suspect is so we'd no longer meet the 90 days since subscribing to cable rule for certain of the DTV packages with local sports and local networks (and distant networks if you're grandfathered in). But yes, all service providers say they have the same rules for everyone, but loss retention and new customer sales have extraordinary latitude to make exceptions. If you want to fight them. But In the above case I have a nice 3 inch portable LCD TV. Oh, and TYING is illegal in some jurisdictions and legal in others and product dependent in almost all.
The second case is not true. There are two methods to load software outside the App store. Note GPL does not require tools or equipment used to be free.
First - jailbreak the phone. Then your world is opened. And it is legal to do. There are risks the user assumes for this, but that is normal.
Second - Get a developer license. Pay Apple $99 a year to develop software for the iPhone. Build the App from scratch, or well lets just say if you're a legit developer and your device is flaged for developer use, certain other venues are open. Which you can discover elsewhere
And open source licensed under BSD/MIT/many more... That is available as a resource to use for App Store Apps. No software that I have used (but experiences vary) has refused to give me access to a copy of the open source items they used even as they modified them.
Lastly, I am actually looking to modify the GPL v2 text (as allowed by FSF) to accommodate the App Store (tm)Apple, Google and Microsoft market place (Google is sort of easier, but maybe not for long after the virus-ware there). Interested in helping me and a lawyer willing to donate some time? write me at the very disposable email address slashlegalhelp @ chammy.info . After a few weeks this will not be monitored.
Perhaps it is time to acknowledge the need to distinguish the various aspects of computer knowledge that is useful for a task by splits into different disciplines. I propose that we consider
Software Engineering - The generic goal of manipulation of software to accomplish a goal, so object oriented design, basic logic, basic math, and a general acceptance as axiomatic the tenets of "good software design" to prevent obvious problems
Computer Science - The study of the more abstract aspects of the problem sets, such as proving software correct, p v np, etc. so higher level math and calculus and in some cases differential analysis.
Computer Operations - The "underwater basket weaving" related curriculum for those who are more challenged. This would be the college level credit courses for Word and other Microsoft Office products. The course of study that is popular in some institutions but whose graduates are more likely to be admin assistants than productive software authors.
Computer Hardware Design - These are folks who not only should know theoretical computer science, but should also have even broader mathematics background and a smattering of graduate level physics at the post grad level of the curriculum.
I'd also offer minors or sub-specialties in graphics, which is math intensive, and game design, where knowledge of physics is good so you know what rules to break, and where you need some psychology as well. And then a security sub-specalization, and many more. But the one thing this article does invoke is the need to define a better set of characteristic goals for the degree. And anything that requires a for credit "Office" course really needs to be rethought by the schools board of regents. If you're going to be programming nuke plant safety systems, you better be smart enough to pick up how to use office while typing papers up in the quad without any lectures. Of course feel free to RTFM.
As a point of reference in the varying needs, I worked for a physics department that analyzed spark chamber lab data. This involved taking their sets of differential and other equations and creating code to implement the various tests. So if you didn't know diff eqs you could fake it, but if you knew them you could write code that didn't just mirror their equations, which in some cases results in non-deterministic run times, and you could create software that performed equivalent operations within the accuracy limitations of the incoming data and was deterministic. That takes a more in depth knowledge of theory of computing as well as advanced math. Of course if you are just programming financial transaction software, well, no wait, that is likely more important, and so you need to know security aspects of software so you don't leave bugs to be exploited by hackers. So bad example, so then maybe if you write the 99% of iPhone Apps that don't pay back the cost of the developer SDK license, sure you don't need much math back ground or even advanced theory. But for real world problem solving we just open up a whole nasty can of worms as we take the science out of computer science. And is training a computer hack even worth the cost of getting or giving a four year degree, can't we just leave this to the associates degree from some obscure community college (and that's hack not hacker please!).
Even music majors know the importance of math and use it for transposition of keys and scales.
Unless this funds replacement of all the licensed users equipment, hams, and police, fire etc. And takes into account treaty restrictions for the use (420-430 MHz is already contentious near the north / Canadian border with some restrictions) this is a non-starter. But the BIG BIG one is Satellite use of the bands. You can't bop over to Radio Shack and get a spare transceiver or transponder for an alternate frequency and send jimmy to the electronics shed to install it. So that is a HUGE expense to replace.
So sure allocate some of the public interest wireless use spectrum that used to be TV spectrum over to public interest and emergency responders, but taking the 440 band from HAM use and alternate emergency services and satellite use is just wrong and costly. If they do this I want my brand new unused (and all my old) 440 gear replaced as part of the auction requirements. I am sitting on about 8 thousand dollars in just my shack and car (and motorcycle) at the moment. And I'll be upset and it will affect my voting pattern...
Is for Apple to allow access to the parental controls setting values. That would allow some of my Apps to tailor their content to the appropriate audience as well. This is one particular case where Apple fell down. This is a generically useful setting (Like Airplane mode. WiFi, etc.) but one that is duplicated across many Apps potentially (unlike AIrplane mode,...) so it _should_ be able to be checked by any App. This would let games substitute less and less gory animations, etc. Maybe have fluffy bunny run off scared by the bubble gun, instead of commando Jim blasted to gory pieces by the inside out exploder grenade...
I need the DOJ to buy me a couple of xServes and a large raid 5 array or ten a rack of space rental and a couple of admins salary full time and another office in the data hotel where I have our really small b2b ISP. What they are asking ISPs to do would otherwise bankrupt me. We have a small ISP, with a few clients, but they are all high profile sites and have huge traffic numbers. Of and a nice high end router so all this data to be collected can be forked off without affecting my customers business too much. I'd need to capture roughly 200 GB a day and store it how long DOJ? You folks are nuts just on technical grounds, let alone financially. OH yeah, are my backbone connection providers (also ISPs) supposed to also collect this same information? You'd think so by the lax specification of what they ask for. And then there is that pesky assumption of privacy thing. As we get more and more of our day to day communications (drop off in landline phones and snail mail because of VOIP and email are just one example) Internet based we are being asked to open more and more of our once personal information to the government. It has to stop.
Take delivery from the upstream supplier but have a yield higher than is possible from the upstream supplier. File patents on the foo-process used to increase yield and then hold the oil companies hostage financially. One by one as they license your technology, which you through the terms of the licensing own the refinery apparatus used, your organization services, and your staff operates. Call me. We can do lunch.
If this is real, don't worry about shorting copper. The radiation involved in this reaction (not to mention the small amounts of copper being produced) will irradiate the copper and as a product of nuclear fusion itself, may well be the extremely long lived radioactive isotope of copper. I know one university had a cyclotron accident that caused them to brick up a wall of the office portion of the building for a _long_ time while the radiation from the various copper alloys (brass) coinage, etc. cooled down. I am not sure of the nuclear chemistry going on in this particular reaction, but don't expect the output is benign and harmless. This could be a methodology to crank out really messy waste products (in very very small quantities, but even so the average cobalt 60 source that is very deadly if encountered unshielded is a really small amount of material.
Fission - dirty by products - heads to iron
Fusion - in general just as dirty - heads to iron
Hydrogen Fusion - Pretty clean and useful by products -...
That Steve Chang is not considered a security expert... The reason Android is less secure is due to implementation choices. If he believes that the iPhone OS has not been ripped apart to its very basic structures he is wrong. The jailbreak community developed sophisticated tools for just that and the Objective-C language itself lends to easy discovery. The quality of the code written with a mindful recognition of security issues is why it may be more secure than Android. Considering that the tools used to create each is mainly open source code, and that interface discovery is possible on both. And that I can profile the execution of code on either platform. (And Apple nicely provides me a simulator where 90% of this can be done without the issues of debugging on the device. Add that to the issue that Android is on a plethora of platforms, and iPhone is on one architecture with incremental improvements. Well iPhone has to be better designed than Android to put up the fight it puts up.
In addition Apple addresses the bugs in their platforms more promptly and is the single source of software updates. The Google Android environment involves too many players and too much finger pointing, and has issues such as delaying updates to push new phone models by the manufacturers responsible for pushing the updates to the phones. So Security fails for Android for commercial conflicts as well.
The assertion that open source is less secure than closed source is laughable considering that the majority of network connected machines rely on open source components for security; outside of Windows architecture machines (Which might arguably be the majority of connected machines but are calculably the largest source of security issues.)
FUD in the security field is unacceptable and when found out I think grounds for corporate punishment if done my executives to push their products on the uninformed.
I will bet that the cooling or warming tracks the solar output within 5% when normalized in scale. Had this bet been placed since both metrics have been accurately measured it would win each decade.
My current boss asked me what I thought of asking all employees to work 10-11 hour days until the company is profitable.... None of the employees have ownership/stock and all are salary...
Hahha ha ha ha haaaaaha ahaaa... Chortle... Yes. Well.
Please tell me where you work so I can avoid having anything to do with you folks...
I'm a consultant. Tell me where you work so I can apply. When I was direct a few years back and interim manager of our department we had a consultant that grossed more than the CEO because of the companies overtime requests and overlapping deadlines.
I thought the implication by the article author was an iPhone was not a top of the range smartphone.
While iPhone currently does not use a dual core the CPU core of the A4 is based on IP that is dual core capable, so it would just mean a hypothetical A5 processor could easily be dual core on the CPU side.
I use thin clients (on fat machines though) to poke at the machines 40 miles from me at our captive ISP. But when graphics performance starts to be an issue, thin loses to fatter machines. It can be mitigated with smarter thin clients that are specialized, but then thin is a bit less thin. And as network bandwidth at 100 megabits or better becomes, 1 available, and, 2 reliable without latency issues, then thin clients may make more sense. But thin clients in graphics applications are essentially broadcasting a dedicated streaming video feed and the bandwidth for millions to do that in a major metro area just aren't in place... yet.
Why C? Because it allows the easy introduction of the mechanisms for expressions, evaluation of expressions, and looping constructs. Then when appropriate theory is taught, objects can be introduced using two of the most common metaphors by branching to Objective-C and C++.
Remember that C is dead simple as a language. Most of the perceived complexity is in the use of the optional libraries. When in a post introduction phase you need say, regular expression evaluation, or something like sparse arrays to match the theory you teach alongside the practical course (catch a theme here?) you have several well designed libraries to invoke. Want an advanced course in generative algorithms? Well, C++ templates can be a very powerful tool. The "C" family of languages covers basic applications level programming to constructs that allow code very close to the hardware.
Post learning C you have the tools to learn other languages without much headache. I love APL, but as a first language its a nightmare (unless you are an engineering, physics or math major and won't program regularly in the real world, then it's a perfect language! Unless you're in the US Financial industry where IBM sold APL and it still is going strong.)... And Dartmouth Basic is the basic to avoid, similarly RPG, and FORTRAN are right out along with COBOL. Each has a place (somewhere far away I hope) in the real world, and except for RPG I've made money on contracts for all of them. But as a beginning language they establish bad patterns of behavior and expectations. Where "C" falls down is that it takes a competent instructor. But I can write a bad program in any language.
Modern "Basic" languages are not "BASIC" as it was from Dartmouth and don't have a lot of the failings or foibles. Real Software has RealBasic which is an awesome cross platform tool, so write once execute a real self contained program on Linux, Mac OS X or Windows xxx. It has Classes and inheritance and mechanisms for interfaces. It has properties for the classes. It is not remotely related to Dartmouth Basic except in the use of Basic as part of the name. I'd recommend it if they'd actually fix bugs posted _for years_ by multiple people to the support forums. It is a nice product for user interfaces, and I still use it when cross platform UI is an issue. But write the backends in C++ sometimes as custom plug-ins. But it is not my first choice for teaching the intro comp sci folks. It is overly complex for a newbie. It requires an instructor that could separate issues from teaching.
Again C to start, object models in Objective-C and/or C++ then complex subjects from there as needed.
So stagnate like it did in the late 90s? Not so. They sell a rate of delivery and a volume cap. Content neutral... If you want 1080p video subscribe to an appropriate rate and volume combination. If the market demands 1080p Internet streaming content then charge enough to support it.
Love the bittorrent strawman. If the bittorrent user pays for the committed information rate and freedom from volume caps then they are already paying for their use. Same as someone who wants to plays 1080p video off of You Tube. There is NO difference. Do remember some people actually distribute legitimate files over torrents
The Googles, Hulus, Apples, and Netflix of the world already pay huge amounts for their side of the Internet connectivity and infrastructure to support their operations. You're saying they need to pay the intermediate carrier that already is paid by the consumer for their connection. So you'd like them to pay twice for the same delivery mechanism that other businesses only pay once for, solely because they have a successful product? Not a great way to encourage new technology in my opinion. You're asking Apple to support Microsoft. Or Google to support my ISP operations. They all pay for a pipe with a committed volume and bit rate now. As a small ISP do I now get to bill Google, Apple, Hulu, and Netflix as well? After all with your logic my users use their services so I should bill them to help build up my infrastructure.
I chatted with the good folks at NSF in 1996 about a new NAP in the pacific northwest. Their answer was that the government wasn't funding more NAPs and the private sector would be responsible for future growth. And after that point in time when hardly any VC would look at such a venture, we've come full circle and the greed just hits that much harder. We went through the "anything mentions Internet fund with wheelbarrows of cash" craze to a better more thought out planning phase today. We have almost used the dark fiber put in in the late 90s but lots still remains dark. No need for the government. If it will be viable commercially then the private sector will fund it. We do need to start looking at network connectivity as a utility though. The profit on an investment in 3 years or less mentality needs to go. I have routers and switches that are over ten years old and still fine for what they need to do. I invest in new hardware as I have demand. The only "disposable" in 3 year hardware I have are mac minis. And most of those actually last for lots longer. But we only plan them for the time we can get vendor service contracts on them.
Capitalism works. In the late 90s the private sector spent billions on infrastructure for the network. Lots of companies died as a result. This is OK! The money that was spent was not wasted as other companies own those assets and they are the better managed, more savvy competitors. If we have a demand for gigabit network service to the home, it will happen. And the private sector can fund it. And they will make money doing it. The core Internet structure is already government funded by the way. The contracts for services support a good bit of the expansion the private sector benefits from.
The other major major flaw in your concepts is who gets the revenue from the QoS. If Apple pays my backbone provider they'd get a some commitment for enhanced delivery to my ISP connections? Which ones? Which backbones? All of them. Everywhere. Even if they don't directly connect to Apple, but already get paid through peering arrangements for the traffic from Apple's suppliers that transit their network. And how to I get paid to turn on the QoS for Apple's traffic. (Literally it is a few Cisco IOS commands, with the side note Cisco had iPhone now it is an apple brand, Cisco had IOS, now it is associated with Apple. Maybe Apple should buy Cisco?) And if I give priority to Apple's content, do I reduce rates for the people I will be dumping or delaying packets from like poor Yahoo or MSN to make way to enhance delivery of Appl
I am decidedly on the right politically, with the caveat I don't discriminate on personal freedoms as to what should be protected and what should have hob-nailed boots trounce it. So maybe neither "side" really wants me. But I strongly favor net neutrality. I also think the best way to combat the fight against it is to add language that loses carriers "common carrier" status when they start filtering based on content. Because truly they are then filtering the content so damaging content they deliver (viruses, SPAM, unwanted content in general or psychic damaging who-ha, or whatever other thing one perceives as damaging content) can land them in a court case. It is one thing to say we provide a connection to the Internet, and if you suck too much on the pipe, we'll slow you down. It is quite another to say that we will allow you full access to XYZZY site but access to PLUGH will be at 20Kbps or we won't allow access to HULACADABRA without an additional fee. It is even worse when they say, cool to connect with your Doors Phone 23 Phone, but that iPineapple is going to cost you more!
In my opinion once they do more than sell me a rate of bits (that may be volume restricted) then they lose common carrier status. And they open the door to a multitude of legitimate (and of course spurious) lawsuits thay will be defending against. My phone service does not stop people from calling me if the phone company doesn't make money from them too. My phone doesn't prevent me from calling other people. (Notice the blocking services offered by the phone company are in the control of the consumer!) The main flaw to the phone argument is 800 numbers but there the 800 provider is receiving a special service (ANI-caller ID that can't be blocked, so be careful calling those anonymous 800 number tip lines) in exchange for what they pay so you don't have too. The internet "pipe" to a consumer is different though. It is dumped into the Internet without consideration as to what the packet contains. It gets routed the same whether part of an email, VOIP call, or DNS request.
If net neutrality is ever defeated I urge everyone affected to file using their jurisdictions anti-spam laws immediately in small claims court or to lodge a complaint with their state's AG if possible on each piece of SPAM, naming not only the spammer but the provider that services their Internet connection as well since they now control content.
Of course, just my opinion, you are as always personally responsible for your actions in these matters.
The traditional utility model is not being used. The companies are not operating like a traditional utility and they want to recoup the investment to fast. But if they deployed a multi-billion dollar earth spanning network and then had a service plan that was competitive to terrestial cell-tower based service, or partnered with a terrestrial provider (to lessen satellite loads) then they could offer subsidized phones at competive rates for longer term contract commitments, especially if they open the phone manufacture up competitively as well.
Given a choice between an iPhone 4 on AT&T and having to jailbreak and unlock it to use it in Europe and beyond, versus a phone I don't have to change SIMs on, on the plane before landing like now, I'd likely op for a satellite based phone. (hopefully iPhone or iPhone-esque but really hooked now) It comes down to price. If for example AT&T joined forces (T-Mobile is even better because of world-spanning presence) and a bunch more joint operating agreements with other terrestrial cell providers with a forward thinking satellite service provider; then priced service to compete with only a small premium; I'd be on a sat phone now. Right now. And so would millions of other people. And if you make the average satellite lifetime into a decade plus preferably 20 years plus, then you can price it competitively and generate a good revenue stream.
But it is a Utility sized one. It depends on a few dollars profit over operating costs from each user each month, not several hundred dollars each month in profit from each user. And the key to lowering per user operating cost is volume. Act like a utility that they are and maybe they can survive. Act like a Internet era get rich quick company... well we know what happened to most of them!
This is a great chance to compare the hardware and firmware of the devices to the factory loads and see what tech the injected, if any. If they added or modified the firmware / software of the devices, the added code can be analyzed. Lots to learn from it. Then a comparison to that and submitted code to open source projects might get a clue to either who wrote the injected code, or code to look more carefully at in the open source projects. I do forensic software analysis and while this is a big task its not insurmountable. A lot less than SETI at home deals with.
OnStar no longer functions.
After the accident I am trapped in my car and can't call for assistance. Really hurts when black ice happens and I slide down the embankment. I'll slowly die without phone service.
I park next to an emergency services vehicle and kill his cell call back to the station. Some smaller jurisdictions rely on mobile phones.
My little girl is trapped in the car trunk of her kidnapper. She can't phone out... (People have self-rescued via cell phone from vehicles.)
You need to look at life expectancy for a given age. Your figures are from birth? The US has an unusually high infant mortality, as well as more deaths before adulthood overall than Britain. I suspect this is due to lower economic strata social issues, from drug use (generally pre-natal, includes tobacco and alcohol) to poor nutrition after birth. In the US we also provide an economic incentive for families (or single mothers) to keep having more children. Once an adult prospects look up overall for US residents. For example, my current life expectancy (based on family history and my habits and age) is 85.8 years. Having been shot, hit by lightening, hit while crossing a street by a car running a red light (who didn't stop!) and been hit by a car while riding my motorcycle down a mountain pass road at 55 to 60 miles per hour and sadly not properly dressed for the occasion, and I've still never spent a night in a hospital, with a broken wrist and nasty road rash being the worst injury; I may make it. That's not counting my oldest brother tossing me into a trash fire and repeatedly throwing me down sets of stairs, or falling 30 feet out of a tree when I was a kid. (My oldest brother is the reason for my strong religious beliefs. So that I can have some piece of mind he'll pay for his past transgressions and all the pain and suffering he causes. Maybe not the best of reasons. )
So what figures do you have for life expectancy for people who are 30 years old, and then 40 and 50. It starts to look better once you've survived to reach a somewhat safer middle age.
While the parent comment was rated Funny when I replied, there is some truth I suspect. Americans in general are neglectful. Of their health, putting off doctor visits for much too long, down to not washing the salt crust from our cars in winter and complaining they rust too fast. But we started with an incredibly healthy genetic stock where survival was selected for. So we get sick but generally survive the sickness. As to the socialized medicine aspect, in the US hospitals and doctors are big business. The one sector of the economy almost guaranteed to thrive no matter what else. And as they are a business, they improve their product in order to compete. So US hospitals will dispose of perfectly good diagnostic equipment to purchase the latest and greatest new machine. In for example Canada it is harder to justify a new MRI that is slightly more sensitive because it doesn't make sense that it may help a small fraction of the MRI patients, they older machine will be quite fine until it needs replacement for more utilitarian reasons. In the US the hospital just raises its rates for an MRI and uses the latest and greatest machine to justify the cost increase to the insurance companies (They get to negotiate prices, individuals have no hope and if not covered generally pay a substantially higher rate). So yes, the lack of socialized medicine allows better equipment and also weeds out doctors that underperform. The competitive US environment may not cause Americans to be overall healthier but it allows the health care providers here more chance to fix them. Or have them limp along. The lack of socialized healthcare also limits the effect of older patients denied treatments because of age as well. In socialized medical systems with bounded budget constrained resources, some patient triage is done that affects ultimately the individuals lifespan, and that is much less the case where ever patient treated is a potential source of business revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple (where Tim Cook, interim leader of Apple, has been outed as gay) removes this App for gay bashing, then all the religious apps will need to be removed to satisfy the atheists, "sexy" male oriented apps removed for the feminists and vice versa (although straight males seem to have an attachment to lesbian sexuality), and so on until the PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals, oh no, the first amendment died that day and that other PETA won in court), well those guys demand all the animal cruelty Apps be removed (i.e., it has an animal image therefore encourages animal exploitation. So no more Penguin Catapult or Angry Birds will remain. All in All after everyone is done objecting the Apple "App Store"(tm) will look as barren as the Microsoft Windows Phone 7 phone Applet Market.
...
Stop the political correctness overreaching because they're well beyond the point of affecting my individual rights. It is equal protection under the law, not the orwellian equal protection for all but some are more equal than others
This is a bad decision.This is the wrong direction. Approve .kids as a TLD. .xxx only creates a percieved value that the rest of the Internet is safe. But local regulations and laws vary so much it will never be able to be enforced. And on top of that you have created a gold mine where the registrar of .xxx can charge whatever the want, domains will have conflicts registering in the one .xxx tld where in the rest of the Internet they have the same mark for different organizations in .net and .com, etc.
.kids domain the registrar can be held liable for policing the registrations they allow. And you simply limit the kids to .kids TLD. That does force major sites to have a kid safe version of representative content. Of course, again, laws vary worldwide on whats acceptable.
...
By having a
The most responsible action would be for parents to take control and responsibility for their kids actions on the Internet. It is not too tough. And it is their role to guide their child's development.
To pass this to government is akin to "It takes a village to raise an idiot."
< Ad hominium debate attack="follows" >
Perhaps it can be attributed to the ICANN not understanding sex as a business, or, well, sex at all
< / Ad Hominum debate >
So now I am free to teach my own theory that 1+1 = 3 for very large values of 1!!!!
I am a Direct TV subscriber since near the beginning. (Viacom messed up too many times and I canceled, as they were disconnecting on the pole, coincidence was with me and I chatted to the guy saying I was dissatisfied. he said well, there is our cable comany, then there is yours, with a smirk. I pulled out the Direct TV receiver boxes and said I had already chosen mine ... He'd not seen a direct broadcast sat dish yet. I told him it was about 1 hour to set up. He seemed not happy.)
... no wait) When Comcast came around and hooked up our Internet, they tried to sell us the cable TV package as well, but I said I was happy with DTV. Well, a few days later and about once a year since, Comcast has offered me free basic cable because we have a business Internet connection. They reason I suspect is so we'd no longer meet the 90 days since subscribing to cable rule for certain of the DTV packages with local sports and local networks (and distant networks if you're grandfathered in). But yes, all service providers say they have the same rules for everyone, but loss retention and new customer sales have extraordinary latitude to make exceptions. If you want to fight them. But In the above case I have a nice 3 inch portable LCD TV. Oh, and TYING is illegal in some jurisdictions and legal in others and product dependent in almost all.
But I digress due to old man syndrome (in my day we tied an onion to our belt as was the fashion of the day
And open source licensed under BSD/MIT/many more ... That is available as a resource to use for App Store Apps. No software that I have used (but experiences vary) has refused to give me access to a copy of the open source items they used even as they modified them.
Lastly, I am actually looking to modify the GPL v2 text (as allowed by FSF) to accommodate the App Store (tm)Apple, Google and Microsoft market place (Google is sort of easier, but maybe not for long after the virus-ware there). Interested in helping me and a lawyer willing to donate some time? write me at the very disposable email address slashlegalhelp @ chammy.info . After a few weeks this will not be monitored.
I'd also offer minors or sub-specialties in graphics, which is math intensive, and game design, where knowledge of physics is good so you know what rules to break, and where you need some psychology as well. And then a security sub-specalization, and many more. But the one thing this article does invoke is the need to define a better set of characteristic goals for the degree. And anything that requires a for credit "Office" course really needs to be rethought by the schools board of regents. If you're going to be programming nuke plant safety systems, you better be smart enough to pick up how to use office while typing papers up in the quad without any lectures. Of course feel free to RTFM.
As a point of reference in the varying needs, I worked for a physics department that analyzed spark chamber lab data. This involved taking their sets of differential and other equations and creating code to implement the various tests. So if you didn't know diff eqs you could fake it, but if you knew them you could write code that didn't just mirror their equations, which in some cases results in non-deterministic run times, and you could create software that performed equivalent operations within the accuracy limitations of the incoming data and was deterministic. That takes a more in depth knowledge of theory of computing as well as advanced math. Of course if you are just programming financial transaction software, well, no wait, that is likely more important, and so you need to know security aspects of software so you don't leave bugs to be exploited by hackers. So bad example, so then maybe if you write the 99% of iPhone Apps that don't pay back the cost of the developer SDK license, sure you don't need much math back ground or even advanced theory. But for real world problem solving we just open up a whole nasty can of worms as we take the science out of computer science. And is training a computer hack even worth the cost of getting or giving a four year degree, can't we just leave this to the associates degree from some obscure community college (and that's hack not hacker please!).
Even music majors know the importance of math and use it for transposition of keys and scales.
Is a post saying the other posts are off topic off topic itself? In any case I posted on topic in about 5 minutes in the future from this post.
Unless this funds replacement of all the licensed users equipment, hams, and police, fire etc. And takes into account treaty restrictions for the use (420-430 MHz is already contentious near the north / Canadian border with some restrictions) this is a non-starter. But the BIG BIG one is Satellite use of the bands. You can't bop over to Radio Shack and get a spare transceiver or transponder for an alternate frequency and send jimmy to the electronics shed to install it. So that is a HUGE expense to replace.
...
So sure allocate some of the public interest wireless use spectrum that used to be TV spectrum over to public interest and emergency responders, but taking the 440 band from HAM use and alternate emergency services and satellite use is just wrong and costly. If they do this I want my brand new unused (and all my old) 440 gear replaced as part of the auction requirements. I am sitting on about 8 thousand dollars in just my shack and car (and motorcycle) at the moment. And I'll be upset and it will affect my voting pattern
Is for Apple to allow access to the parental controls setting values. That would allow some of my Apps to tailor their content to the appropriate audience as well. This is one particular case where Apple fell down. This is a generically useful setting (Like Airplane mode. WiFi, etc.) but one that is duplicated across many Apps potentially (unlike AIrplane mode, ...) so it _should_ be able to be checked by any App. This would let games substitute less and less gory animations, etc. Maybe have fluffy bunny run off scared by the bubble gun, instead of commando Jim blasted to gory pieces by the inside out exploder grenade ...
I need the DOJ to buy me a couple of xServes and a large raid 5 array or ten a rack of space rental and a couple of admins salary full time and another office in the data hotel where I have our really small b2b ISP. What they are asking ISPs to do would otherwise bankrupt me. We have a small ISP, with a few clients, but they are all high profile sites and have huge traffic numbers. Of and a nice high end router so all this data to be collected can be forked off without affecting my customers business too much. I'd need to capture roughly 200 GB a day and store it how long DOJ? You folks are nuts just on technical grounds, let alone financially. OH yeah, are my backbone connection providers (also ISPs) supposed to also collect this same information? You'd think so by the lax specification of what they ask for. And then there is that pesky assumption of privacy thing. As we get more and more of our day to day communications (drop off in landline phones and snail mail because of VOIP and email are just one example) Internet based we are being asked to open more and more of our once personal information to the government. It has to stop.
Take delivery from the upstream supplier but have a yield higher than is possible from the upstream supplier. File patents on the foo-process used to increase yield and then hold the oil companies hostage financially. One by one as they license your technology, which you through the terms of the licensing own the refinery apparatus used, your organization services, and your staff operates. Call me. We can do lunch.
-- Hank Scorpio, CEO, Globex Corporation
If this is real, don't worry about shorting copper. The radiation involved in this reaction (not to mention the small amounts of copper being produced) will irradiate the copper and as a product of nuclear fusion itself, may well be the extremely long lived radioactive isotope of copper. I know one university had a cyclotron accident that caused them to brick up a wall of the office portion of the building for a _long_ time while the radiation from the various copper alloys (brass) coinage, etc. cooled down. I am not sure of the nuclear chemistry going on in this particular reaction, but don't expect the output is benign and harmless. This could be a methodology to crank out really messy waste products (in very very small quantities, but even so the average cobalt 60 source that is very deadly if encountered unshielded is a really small amount of material.
...
...
Fission - dirty by products - heads to iron
Fusion - in general just as dirty - heads to iron
Hydrogen Fusion - Pretty clean and useful by products -
Just 'cuz its fusion doesn't make it clean
That Steve Chang is not considered a security expert ... The reason Android is less secure is due to implementation choices. If he believes that the iPhone OS has not been ripped apart to its very basic structures he is wrong. The jailbreak community developed sophisticated tools for just that and the Objective-C language itself lends to easy discovery. The quality of the code written with a mindful recognition of security issues is why it may be more secure than Android. Considering that the tools used to create each is mainly open source code, and that interface discovery is possible on both. And that I can profile the execution of code on either platform. (And Apple nicely provides me a simulator where 90% of this can be done without the issues of debugging on the device. Add that to the issue that Android is on a plethora of platforms, and iPhone is on one architecture with incremental improvements. Well iPhone has to be better designed than Android to put up the fight it puts up.
In addition Apple addresses the bugs in their platforms more promptly and is the single source of software updates. The Google Android environment involves too many players and too much finger pointing, and has issues such as delaying updates to push new phone models by the manufacturers responsible for pushing the updates to the phones. So Security fails for Android for commercial conflicts as well.
The assertion that open source is less secure than closed source is laughable considering that the majority of network connected machines rely on open source components for security; outside of Windows architecture machines (Which might arguably be the majority of connected machines but are calculably the largest source of security issues.)
FUD in the security field is unacceptable and when found out I think grounds for corporate punishment if done my executives to push their products on the uninformed.
I will bet that the cooling or warming tracks the solar output within 5% when normalized in scale. Had this bet been placed since both metrics have been accurately measured it would win each decade.
My current boss asked me what I thought of asking all employees to work 10-11 hour days until the company is profitable. ... None of the employees have ownership/stock and all are salary...
Hahha ha ha ha haaaaaha ahaaa... Chortle... Yes. Well. Please tell me where you work so I can avoid having anything to do with you folks...
I'm a consultant. Tell me where you work so I can apply. When I was direct a few years back and interim manager of our department we had a consultant that grossed more than the CEO because of the companies overtime requests and overlapping deadlines.
I thought the implication by the article author was an iPhone was not a top of the range smartphone.
While iPhone currently does not use a dual core the CPU core of the A4 is based on IP that is dual core capable, so it would just mean a hypothetical A5 processor could easily be dual core on the CPU side.
I use thin clients (on fat machines though) to poke at the machines 40 miles from me at our captive ISP. But when graphics performance starts to be an issue, thin loses to fatter machines. It can be mitigated with smarter thin clients that are specialized, but then thin is a bit less thin. And as network bandwidth at 100 megabits or better becomes, 1 available, and, 2 reliable without latency issues, then thin clients may make more sense. But thin clients in graphics applications are essentially broadcasting a dedicated streaming video feed and the bandwidth for millions to do that in a major metro area just aren't in place ... yet.
Why C? Because it allows the easy introduction of the mechanisms for expressions, evaluation of expressions, and looping constructs. Then when appropriate theory is taught, objects can be introduced using two of the most common metaphors by branching to Objective-C and C++.
Remember that C is dead simple as a language. Most of the perceived complexity is in the use of the optional libraries. When in a post introduction phase you need say, regular expression evaluation, or something like sparse arrays to match the theory you teach alongside the practical course (catch a theme here?) you have several well designed libraries to invoke. Want an advanced course in generative algorithms? Well, C++ templates can be a very powerful tool. The "C" family of languages covers basic applications level programming to constructs that allow code very close to the hardware.
Post learning C you have the tools to learn other languages without much headache. I love APL, but as a first language its a nightmare (unless you are an engineering, physics or math major and won't program regularly in the real world, then it's a perfect language! Unless you're in the US Financial industry where IBM sold APL and it still is going strong.)... And Dartmouth Basic is the basic to avoid, similarly RPG, and FORTRAN are right out along with COBOL. Each has a place (somewhere far away I hope) in the real world, and except for RPG I've made money on contracts for all of them. But as a beginning language they establish bad patterns of behavior and expectations. Where "C" falls down is that it takes a competent instructor. But I can write a bad program in any language.
Modern "Basic" languages are not "BASIC" as it was from Dartmouth and don't have a lot of the failings or foibles. Real Software has RealBasic which is an awesome cross platform tool, so write once execute a real self contained program on Linux, Mac OS X or Windows xxx. It has Classes and inheritance and mechanisms for interfaces. It has properties for the classes. It is not remotely related to Dartmouth Basic except in the use of Basic as part of the name. I'd recommend it if they'd actually fix bugs posted _for years_ by multiple people to the support forums. It is a nice product for user interfaces, and I still use it when cross platform UI is an issue. But write the backends in C++ sometimes as custom plug-ins. But it is not my first choice for teaching the intro comp sci folks. It is overly complex for a newbie. It requires an instructor that could separate issues from teaching.
Again C to start, object models in Objective-C and/or C++ then complex subjects from there as needed.
So stagnate like it did in the late 90s? Not so. They sell a rate of delivery and a volume cap. Content neutral ... If you want 1080p video subscribe to an appropriate rate and volume combination. If the market demands 1080p Internet streaming content then charge enough to support it.
Love the bittorrent strawman. If the bittorrent user pays for the committed information rate and freedom from volume caps then they are already paying for their use. Same as someone who wants to plays 1080p video off of You Tube. There is NO difference. Do remember some people actually distribute legitimate files over torrents
The Googles, Hulus, Apples, and Netflix of the world already pay huge amounts for their side of the Internet connectivity and infrastructure to support their operations. You're saying they need to pay the intermediate carrier that already is paid by the consumer for their connection. So you'd like them to pay twice for the same delivery mechanism that other businesses only pay once for, solely because they have a successful product? Not a great way to encourage new technology in my opinion. You're asking Apple to support Microsoft. Or Google to support my ISP operations. They all pay for a pipe with a committed volume and bit rate now. As a small ISP do I now get to bill Google, Apple, Hulu, and Netflix as well? After all with your logic my users use their services so I should bill them to help build up my infrastructure.
I chatted with the good folks at NSF in 1996 about a new NAP in the pacific northwest. Their answer was that the government wasn't funding more NAPs and the private sector would be responsible for future growth. And after that point in time when hardly any VC would look at such a venture, we've come full circle and the greed just hits that much harder. We went through the "anything mentions Internet fund with wheelbarrows of cash" craze to a better more thought out planning phase today. We have almost used the dark fiber put in in the late 90s but lots still remains dark. No need for the government. If it will be viable commercially then the private sector will fund it. We do need to start looking at network connectivity as a utility though. The profit on an investment in 3 years or less mentality needs to go. I have routers and switches that are over ten years old and still fine for what they need to do. I invest in new hardware as I have demand. The only "disposable" in 3 year hardware I have are mac minis. And most of those actually last for lots longer. But we only plan them for the time we can get vendor service contracts on them.
Capitalism works. In the late 90s the private sector spent billions on infrastructure for the network. Lots of companies died as a result. This is OK! The money that was spent was not wasted as other companies own those assets and they are the better managed, more savvy competitors. If we have a demand for gigabit network service to the home, it will happen. And the private sector can fund it. And they will make money doing it. The core Internet structure is already government funded by the way. The contracts for services support a good bit of the expansion the private sector benefits from.
The other major major flaw in your concepts is who gets the revenue from the QoS. If Apple pays my backbone provider they'd get a some commitment for enhanced delivery to my ISP connections? Which ones? Which backbones? All of them. Everywhere. Even if they don't directly connect to Apple, but already get paid through peering arrangements for the traffic from Apple's suppliers that transit their network. And how to I get paid to turn on the QoS for Apple's traffic. (Literally it is a few Cisco IOS commands, with the side note Cisco had iPhone now it is an apple brand, Cisco had IOS, now it is associated with Apple. Maybe Apple should buy Cisco?) And if I give priority to Apple's content, do I reduce rates for the people I will be dumping or delaying packets from like poor Yahoo or MSN to make way to enhance delivery of Appl
I am decidedly on the right politically, with the caveat I don't discriminate on personal freedoms as to what should be protected and what should have hob-nailed boots trounce it. So maybe neither "side" really wants me. But I strongly favor net neutrality. I also think the best way to combat the fight against it is to add language that loses carriers "common carrier" status when they start filtering based on content. Because truly they are then filtering the content so damaging content they deliver (viruses, SPAM, unwanted content in general or psychic damaging who-ha, or whatever other thing one perceives as damaging content) can land them in a court case. It is one thing to say we provide a connection to the Internet, and if you suck too much on the pipe, we'll slow you down. It is quite another to say that we will allow you full access to XYZZY site but access to PLUGH will be at 20Kbps or we won't allow access to HULACADABRA without an additional fee. It is even worse when they say, cool to connect with your Doors Phone 23 Phone, but that iPineapple is going to cost you more!
In my opinion once they do more than sell me a rate of bits (that may be volume restricted) then they lose common carrier status. And they open the door to a multitude of legitimate (and of course spurious) lawsuits thay will be defending against. My phone service does not stop people from calling me if the phone company doesn't make money from them too. My phone doesn't prevent me from calling other people. (Notice the blocking services offered by the phone company are in the control of the consumer!) The main flaw to the phone argument is 800 numbers but there the 800 provider is receiving a special service (ANI-caller ID that can't be blocked, so be careful calling those anonymous 800 number tip lines) in exchange for what they pay so you don't have too. The internet "pipe" to a consumer is different though. It is dumped into the Internet without consideration as to what the packet contains. It gets routed the same whether part of an email, VOIP call, or DNS request.
If net neutrality is ever defeated I urge everyone affected to file using their jurisdictions anti-spam laws immediately in small claims court or to lodge a complaint with their state's AG if possible on each piece of SPAM, naming not only the spammer but the provider that services their Internet connection as well since they now control content.
Of course, just my opinion, you are as always personally responsible for your actions in these matters.
The traditional utility model is not being used. The companies are not operating like a traditional utility and they want to recoup the investment to fast. But if they deployed a multi-billion dollar earth spanning network and then had a service plan that was competitive to terrestial cell-tower based service, or partnered with a terrestrial provider (to lessen satellite loads) then they could offer subsidized phones at competive rates for longer term contract commitments, especially if they open the phone manufacture up competitively as well.
... well we know what happened to most of them!
Given a choice between an iPhone 4 on AT&T and having to jailbreak and unlock it to use it in Europe and beyond, versus a phone I don't have to change SIMs on, on the plane before landing like now, I'd likely op for a satellite based phone. (hopefully iPhone or iPhone-esque but really hooked now) It comes down to price. If for example AT&T joined forces (T-Mobile is even better because of world-spanning presence) and a bunch more joint operating agreements with other terrestrial cell providers with a forward thinking satellite service provider; then priced service to compete with only a small premium; I'd be on a sat phone now. Right now. And so would millions of other people. And if you make the average satellite lifetime into a decade plus preferably 20 years plus, then you can price it competitively and generate a good revenue stream.
But it is a Utility sized one. It depends on a few dollars profit over operating costs from each user each month, not several hundred dollars each month in profit from each user. And the key to lowering per user operating cost is volume. Act like a utility that they are and maybe they can survive. Act like a Internet era get rich quick company
This is a great chance to compare the hardware and firmware of the devices to the factory loads and see what tech the injected, if any. If they added or modified the firmware / software of the devices, the added code can be analyzed. Lots to learn from it. Then a comparison to that and submitted code to open source projects might get a clue to either who wrote the injected code, or code to look more carefully at in the open source projects. I do forensic software analysis and while this is a big task its not insurmountable. A lot less than SETI at home deals with.
OnStar no longer functions. ... (People have self-rescued via cell phone from vehicles.)
After the accident I am trapped in my car and can't call for assistance. Really hurts when black ice happens and I slide down the embankment. I'll slowly die without phone service.
I park next to an emergency services vehicle and kill his cell call back to the station. Some smaller jurisdictions rely on mobile phones.
My little girl is trapped in the car trunk of her kidnapper. She can't phone out
Just saying this needs to be well thought out...
You need to look at life expectancy for a given age. Your figures are from birth? The US has an unusually high infant mortality, as well as more deaths before adulthood overall than Britain. I suspect this is due to lower economic strata social issues, from drug use (generally pre-natal, includes tobacco and alcohol) to poor nutrition after birth. In the US we also provide an economic incentive for families (or single mothers) to keep having more children. Once an adult prospects look up overall for US residents. For example, my current life expectancy (based on family history and my habits and age) is 85.8 years. Having been shot, hit by lightening, hit while crossing a street by a car running a red light (who didn't stop!) and been hit by a car while riding my motorcycle down a mountain pass road at 55 to 60 miles per hour and sadly not properly dressed for the occasion, and I've still never spent a night in a hospital, with a broken wrist and nasty road rash being the worst injury; I may make it. That's not counting my oldest brother tossing me into a trash fire and repeatedly throwing me down sets of stairs, or falling 30 feet out of a tree when I was a kid. (My oldest brother is the reason for my strong religious beliefs. So that I can have some piece of mind he'll pay for his past transgressions and all the pain and suffering he causes. Maybe not the best of reasons. )
So what figures do you have for life expectancy for people who are 30 years old, and then 40 and 50. It starts to look better once you've survived to reach a somewhat safer middle age.
While the parent comment was rated Funny when I replied, there is some truth I suspect. Americans in general are neglectful. Of their health, putting off doctor visits for much too long, down to not washing the salt crust from our cars in winter and complaining they rust too fast. But we started with an incredibly healthy genetic stock where survival was selected for. So we get sick but generally survive the sickness. As to the socialized medicine aspect, in the US hospitals and doctors are big business. The one sector of the economy almost guaranteed to thrive no matter what else. And as they are a business, they improve their product in order to compete. So US hospitals will dispose of perfectly good diagnostic equipment to purchase the latest and greatest new machine. In for example Canada it is harder to justify a new MRI that is slightly more sensitive because it doesn't make sense that it may help a small fraction of the MRI patients, they older machine will be quite fine until it needs replacement for more utilitarian reasons. In the US the hospital just raises its rates for an MRI and uses the latest and greatest machine to justify the cost increase to the insurance companies (They get to negotiate prices, individuals have no hope and if not covered generally pay a substantially higher rate). So yes, the lack of socialized medicine allows better equipment and also weeds out doctors that underperform. The competitive US environment may not cause Americans to be overall healthier but it allows the health care providers here more chance to fix them. Or have them limp along. The lack of socialized healthcare also limits the effect of older patients denied treatments because of age as well. In socialized medical systems with bounded budget constrained resources, some patient triage is done that affects ultimately the individuals lifespan, and that is much less the case where ever patient treated is a potential source of business revenue.
You see. Greed IS good.