What I don't understand is why we are not seeing cheap 3d for projectors using polarized glasses. It would take less than $20 worth of parts to take a standard projector and make it a 3d projector. Just replace the spinning color wheel on the projector with one that has the same colors twice with different polarizers on each side.
This cheapo solution of course lowers the luminance and requires either a slower color wheel or twice the frame rate on the DLP. for a little more money you could even recapture the lost luminance, but it would be simpler to use a brighter bulb. Neither of those are serious issues because projector luminance has more than doubled for the same price in the last few years, and so have color wheel speeds, so it's a tiny degredadation to use 3-d mode. Moreover it's demostrably tolerable to viewers since there are people who sell retrofits for projectors (that go over the front of the lens) that do exactly that. But the retrofit approach is expensive compared to just changing out the color wheel.
The question then is how do you drive it but that's all a software issue.
In most of New Mexico, comcast sells "high speed internet" as 6Mb/sec and above. they also sell 1Mb/sec internet. The funny thing is, that betwwen 6pm and 12pm, no one gets even 1Mb/sec sustained. So basically the term means " would you like to pay double for no extra speed?". Redefining it down makes sense to me since that is how it is now,
No No. GPU's only become CPU's when they are 570.34567 times faster. You will note that he precisely said only 570 times faster. That is he did not say an even 600 or 1000 or 500, but precisely 570, so we can assume he knew it was not 570.34567.
Just like that airplane seat, hotel room, rental car, theater ticket, etc... the same thing is sold for different prices according to willingness to pay. Just like senior discounts.
It's econ 101. demand curve pricing. if the demand versus price curve is actually curved with a long tale then maximum profit is achieved when a company is able to segregate consumers by willingness to pay. Your revenue is the are under the curve. and single price just gets the area of the larges rectangle you can place under the curve.
Econ 201: in second term economics we learn that the price demand curve is not actually a single curve but is a family of curves parameterized by the total number of units manufactured. So as the company is able to sell things at different prices to more people the entire curve shifts down, making it either cheaper for everyone, or mor profitable for the company depending who gets the benefit of the increased production.
even though it's galling to know the product you bought is just a dumbed down version of a beter one at no difference in manufacturing costs it may well be much cheaper than it would have been had they sold one thing at one price.
Of course it may be that your customers hate this. a few companies like Apple and Saturn use a more price fix model precisely because it fits their style of minimizing aggravation. But even they have college student or military discounts.
"Stephen Norris Capital Partners pumped up to $100 million into SCO believing the rulings against the company could be reversed on appeal to a higher court. The firmâ(TM)s commitment requires SCO to âoeaggressively continueâ its ongoing litigation against Novell and IBM, as well as another case against AutoZone Inc. " ref
Can a lawyer ever give a definitive answer? A appeals court yesterday overturned the assignment of UNIX to NOVELL giving SCO clearance to sue IBM for billions. I'd imagine the android handset makers and most linux-based router makers have reasons to be nervous as well. SCO also has a new deep pocket backing it's legal team. it's on again!. I doubt even lawyer could really give you a definitive answer on licensing.
I'd say that Rosmary Port has defined her own new class. Won't be long before someone has a blog called the "Ports of New York" in her honor. Oh my gosh there already is: Looks like google already has a blog for "the ports of new york". Will they out it?
and that is not a bad thing. Study after study has shown that by charging for parking you build in some the economic externalities into the cost of driving. think of it as a way to discourage congestion. it gives more people the opportunity to park downtown if people are discouraged from lingering. Sure you could charge more for gas or have fees to enter the city, or any number of things but this is easy to implement and has fewer side effects (as raising gas would). By making it difficult you pay with nuisance and wasted time rather than cash, which is a less regressive form of taxation.
I'm sure their user agreement spells out that they can ban you for any reason at any time and owe you nothing. But that was before they started selling imaginary property outside the game. THis legitimizes the ingame value of the stuff they just "took" from you without compensation. I bet there are a few in that 6000 that will sue. Might set an interesting precedent if it's not all settled out of court.
Well in this case the group that developed the test was also the group that showed it was possible to spoof existing tests. and it's a commercial technology: they sell the test kits. So it was totally in their interest to show why you need to buy their test.
But also in this case it benefits the Cat and not the mouse. If someone tries to spoof the existing test and they don't guess right in how to spoof it -- e.g. they try to evade the spoof detector, and don't anticipate there is a new spoof detector evasion detector ) then it sort of nails them for premeditation of the crime.
5) the gel got contaminated on earth. or the mass spec is not definitive about the molecule in question.
I lean towards 5, and then 3 as a close second.
I would have agreed with you before I RTFA. The authors acknowledged contamination as a confounding factor, and tested for it by isotopic analysis of the C13:C12 ratio, where glycine from space is expected to have a greater amount of C13. This is precisely what they found, allowing them to conclude that the glycine did, in fact, come from the comet.
Right. But one can still wriggle a bit on this. The gel was presumably bombarded by many many orders of magnitude more space-borne carbon sources that the weakly present amino acid. Is it impossible that these carbon atoms exchanged? maybe the gel isolates things enough that there is no conduit for exchange. Or maybe the rate of exchange is just too slow to be reasonable.
More to the point however is the presumed lack of other amino acids. if the source were terrestrial life contamination then you would expect other amino acids besides glycine. This suggests to me that if there is contamination it is industrial sources rather than biological. And if it is industrial, the carbon 13 ratio might possibly have a slightly different ratio than living matter.
1) it was scooped from earth or another planet with life by the comet: dubious
2) a planet with life somewhere got crushed and the ejected material that formed the comet got some amino acids in it. weakly possible.
3) Given it's been shown that freezing primordial materials found in space actually promotes the formation of nucleic acids, it might not be much of a reach to suppose that there are natural processes in cold space that will form amino acids.
4) there are life forms that live on comets. presumably then panspermia is ubiquitous.
5) the gel got contaminated on earth. or the mass spec is not definitive about the molecule in question.
I lean towards 5, and then 3 as a close second. Of course 4 would be interesting, as it's direct panspermia. But if indeed the building blocks of life as we know it pervade the universe and occur naturally it also suggests there probably are a lot of similar nucloetide/peptide base life forms out there.
Seems like a plane built overseas is not really going to as attractive to the defense folks.
One can't resist a bit of glee at their troubles. The company ditched it's Seattle roots, moved to Chicago, then sought to layoff its US workers by outsourcing it's manufacturing capability. So it's satisfying to see this strategy ruin cause pain and not be such a good deal.
On the other hand given the global downturn it's not such a bad time to behind schedule. Airbus is going to eat it on the over sized beast they bet on, and the 787 is likely to look like the right size going forward.
Well, historically Democrats are in bed with the Hollywood types so it's not a certain thing that media owners might not see some love too.
But besides that I blame this on google. Yes google and their don't be evil motto. Seems like there's this fixed amount of evil and if one company tries not to use evil then it just accumulates somewhere else.
Except the company suing them aren't patent trolls. If you took a minute to check out their site, they legitimately offer services that directly relate to what they're suing about.
First off I would have to disagree that your assertionis correct (see below). But at the same time I would assert that the technique in question might be on the hairy edge of patentable, making them legitimate--maybe.
Okay so what is the patent about? Well it's not about using XML to store documents. It's about a somewhat specific way of storing xml for documents in file systems or streams that has gains some efficiency over the conventional XML format. Specifically you write the documents plain text out as raw plain text without any XML tags. Then in separate location you write our all the xml tags. After each tag you write a pointer to the chearacter position in the plain text where the tag needs to go. The claim is this means that if you change formats you don't have to re-write the file with the plain text thus making it a lot faster to update (and you can imagine stream on the cloud). The second patented feature is that this allows one to store multiple "views". That is one could have multiple different xml tag sets for the same text body. Besides simply being a view, this is useful also for undo's
So you can see this pertains basically to "fast saves" of big documents, and possibly to cloud applications.
It's pretty easy to imagine other ways to skln this cat if you had too. FOr example, store diffs which I think is how the older MS fast saves work anyhow. But in the cloud world I bet just using XML views rather than diffs is slightly more javascript freindly given all the existing XML based code. plus it makes i more of an open standard.
SO while MS could work around this, it will make the resulting document less open format. a terrible irony.
One could question howver if this is really patent worthy. I'd say maybe. it does have tangible advantages and back when it was patented it might have been the first time for xml to be encoded this way (I have no idea on that). But it also seems kinda obvious. Many XML documents sort of do that in a way already. They insert some labeled format tag which we call a "style" then put the detailed XML description of that "style" in the document header. SOr example apple's pages does that, and presumbaly most processors with style sheets have done that. But that's still a bit different than actuall pointers.
So maybe maybe it's patent worthy. I'd say no. but it's arguable.
ANyhow getting back to the parent's assertion that they market this, well thats nonsense. this is a technique that once you tell it to someone is generic. No one would hire you to implement it for their own product so you can't sell any services here. And any specific implementation is irrelevant. FOr example this is not going to affect their competitiveness in selling a word processor.
I've had a simmilar experience. I am a subject matter expert on a particular area of optical physics and periodically edit a section I initiated. Lately I find these edits reverted within minutes. it's truly aggravating. It's not for lack of citations since the citations there contain the info. and Moreover many of the edits I make are neutral in content but simply refactor the description or consolidate repetitious parts. Sometimes I this revert battle goes on and on.
uh... isn't bee Pollen one of those things they put in the energy pills they sell at the gas-n-go mini marts? Maybe they should add some pollen to that sugar water.
also isn't giving Bee's sugar going to prevent them from bothering with the flowers they are supposed to be pollinating? after all they visit flowers for sugar not pollen. The pollen is just symbiotic side-efffect.
The story blurb was an interesting one aside from the gratuitous flamebait question at the end. Don't the editors do any editing at all. if not we need a new name for the slashdot editors. They seem to have the same no-added value functionality of the men's room attendants who are there to hand you a towel as thought you could not get one yourself.
When tunes are stored on an ipod they are stored in a way that creates a speedbump to just trasnfering them off. basically the names are munged. Maybe they mess with the id3 tags--don't know. But apple has long been a proponent of speedbump DRM, that is drm that gets in your way enough that most users won't hassle with defeating it.
The real trick that apple accomplished was convincing the music companies that this was sufficient protection.
IN return apple probably has to make a reasonable effort to prevent cases where pod-to-pod transfers all proliferation of music. this would include nominal efforts to never have a legitimate channel for this.
they won't care if it's not perfect. But they probably are obligated to try.
if this is to become a game then apple could turn the tables. Have itunes interrogate the other features the palm exposes
I smell an "iTunes compatibility mode"... all Palm-specific features disabled so iTunes still can't tell the difference.;)
Okay then let's say itunes just waits for the one time you plug it in before turning on compatibility mode. itunes then pushes over 1000 songs that are fingerprinted in a special way. Maybe they are all car alarms and babies crying. or just diminished audio quality. or maybe nothing youo can tell at all. But then the next time you try to update even in compatibility mode, itunes recognizes the fingerprint and intentionally malfunctions. it will be enought to drive you batty if the malfunction is cleverly chosen (e.g. transfers over songs with buzzing sounds in the background so you think your speaker is busted).
Theres only so much though that Apple can do short of killing compatibility with older iPods. Eventually Apple will just have to give up.
Well yes and no. first it means that the functionality palm can offer may not always be able to exceed that of the old iphones. Suppose for example while simple tunes transfer may be possibel by emulating the old ipod, suppose that new digital ipods or ones with camera would be more recognizable by itunes and so itunes would refuse to transfer over video or voice memos from an old ipod which is not supposed to have those capabilities. SO you can only get so far pretending to be an old ipod.
second, if this is to become a game then apple could turn the tables. Have itunes interrogate the other features the palm exposes. that is, when a palm plugs in it has to do more than just look like an old ipod. it has to also have some sort of palm specific conduit for address books and other phone features. apple could have itunes hunt for those to determine the phone is a pseudoPod.
That of course ratchets things up a notch, so apple may not want to drop that bomb for a long time. But it's hard to see how palm could escape that without being in the same boat-- breaking compatibility for older pre's
Why as a consumer would I be so dumb as to buy a palm if my itunes only worked intermittently or had no assured path forward. Sure one could perhaps use the old version of itunes while I waited for palm to fix it. But really that's not a strategy. I'm in that boat right now with my jailbroken iphone and did I not sort of enjoy the novelty of this cat and mouse game it would be a detraction not an attraction. I can't imagine most people want a phone that might not work some of the time. who needs to waste time like that?
how appropriate you are an anonymous coward. but sorry, no, that's not how PII is defined. to exist we give our names in daily like. if you send and e-mail and expect a reply you give you e-mail address. I can't be made responsible for having either on my computer.
Under federal law, all federally owned or federal contractor owned computers now have to protect PII. this means all sorts of niscances on your computer as well as big penalties for you personally if you lose a laptop and the PII as not adequately secured.
fortunately e-mail addreresses, phone numbers, and yes EVEN names of people are, interestingly not PII. can you image if they were? likewise IP addresses are not PII.
I think people just don't understand the concept of PII, they mis interepret the ill chosen term. PII is not something that would normally place you at risk if revealed. Sure a spammer could spam you e-mail or DOS your IPaddress but that's not what they mean. If someone knows things associated with your security like your SS ID, that is considered PII.
I think that the show is on the wrong foot with regard to SS. Basically the SS number has been overloaded with too many uses to the point where you basically have to tell people it, yet you actually are made vulnerable by this. Something needs to be done about SS numbers so they don't have to be PII.
Slashdot Mirror
What I don't understand is why we are not seeing cheap 3d for projectors using polarized glasses. It would take less than $20 worth of parts to take a standard projector and make it a 3d projector. Just replace the spinning color wheel on the projector with one that has the same colors twice with different polarizers on each side.
This cheapo solution of course lowers the luminance and requires either a slower color wheel or twice the frame rate on the DLP. for a little more money you could even recapture the lost luminance, but it would be simpler to use a brighter bulb. Neither of those are serious issues because projector luminance has more than doubled for the same price in the last few years, and so have color wheel speeds, so it's a tiny degredadation to use 3-d mode. Moreover it's demostrably tolerable to viewers since there are people who sell retrofits for projectors (that go over the front of the lens) that do exactly that. But the retrofit approach is expensive compared to just changing out the color wheel.
The question then is how do you drive it but that's all a software issue.
In most of New Mexico, comcast sells "high speed internet" as 6Mb/sec and above. they also sell 1Mb/sec internet. The funny thing is, that betwwen 6pm and 12pm, no one gets even 1Mb/sec sustained. So basically the term means " would you like to pay double for no extra speed?". Redefining it down makes sense to me since that is how it is now,
Then we can use our GPUs as our CPUs!
No No. GPU's only become CPU's when they are 570.34567 times faster. You will note that he precisely said only 570 times faster. That is he did not say an even 600 or 1000 or 500, but precisely 570, so we can assume he knew it was not 570.34567.
Just like that airplane seat, hotel room, rental car, theater ticket, etc... the same thing is sold for different prices according to willingness to pay. Just like senior discounts.
It's econ 101. demand curve pricing. if the demand versus price curve is actually curved with a long tale then maximum profit is achieved when a company is able to segregate consumers by willingness to pay. Your revenue is the are under the curve. and single price just gets the area of the larges rectangle you can place under the curve.
Econ 201: in second term economics we learn that the price demand curve is not actually a single curve but is a family of curves parameterized by the total number of units manufactured. So as the company is able to sell things at different prices to more people the entire curve shifts down, making it either cheaper for everyone, or mor profitable for the company depending who gets the benefit of the increased production.
even though it's galling to know the product you bought is just a dumbed down version of a beter one at no difference in manufacturing costs it may well be much cheaper than it would have been had they sold one thing at one price.
Of course it may be that your customers hate this. a few companies like Apple and Saturn use a more price fix model precisely because it fits their style of minimizing aggravation. But even they have college student or military discounts.
"Stephen Norris Capital Partners pumped up to $100 million into SCO believing the rulings against the company could be reversed on appeal to a higher court. The firmâ(TM)s commitment requires SCO to âoeaggressively continueâ its ongoing litigation against Novell and IBM, as well as another case against AutoZone Inc. " ref
Can a lawyer ever give a definitive answer?
A appeals court yesterday overturned the assignment of UNIX to NOVELL giving SCO clearance to sue IBM for billions. I'd imagine the android handset makers and most linux-based router makers have reasons to be nervous as well. SCO also has a new deep pocket backing it's legal team. it's on again!.
I doubt even lawyer could really give you a definitive answer on licensing.
I'd say that Rosmary Port has defined her own new class. Won't be long before someone has a blog called the "Ports of New York" in her honor. Oh my gosh there already is: Looks like google already has a blog for "the ports of new york". Will they out it?
and that is not a bad thing. Study after study has shown that by charging for parking you build in some the economic externalities into the cost of driving. think of it as a way to discourage congestion. it gives more people the opportunity to park downtown if people are discouraged from lingering. Sure you could charge more for gas or have fees to enter the city, or any number of things but this is easy to implement and has fewer side effects (as raising gas would). By making it difficult you pay with nuisance and wasted time rather than cash, which is a less regressive form of taxation.
I'm sure their user agreement spells out that they can ban you for any reason at any time and owe you nothing. But that was before they started selling imaginary property outside the game. THis legitimizes the ingame value of the stuff they just "took" from you without compensation. I bet there are a few in that 6000 that will sue. Might set an interesting precedent if it's not all settled out of court.
Well in this case the group that developed the test was also the group that showed it was possible to spoof existing tests. and it's a commercial technology: they sell the test kits. So it was totally in their interest to show why you need to buy their test.
But also in this case it benefits the Cat and not the mouse. If someone tries to spoof the existing test and they don't guess right in how to spoof it -- e.g. they try to evade the spoof detector, and don't anticipate there is a new spoof detector evasion detector ) then it sort of nails them for premeditation of the crime.
5) the gel got contaminated on earth. or the mass spec is not definitive about the molecule in question.
I lean towards 5, and then 3 as a close second.
I would have agreed with you before I RTFA. The authors acknowledged contamination as a confounding factor, and tested for it by isotopic analysis of the C13:C12 ratio, where glycine from space is expected to have a greater amount of C13. This is precisely what they found, allowing them to conclude that the glycine did, in fact, come from the comet.
Right. But one can still wriggle a bit on this. The gel was presumably bombarded by many many orders of magnitude more space-borne carbon sources that the weakly present amino acid. Is it impossible that these carbon atoms exchanged? maybe the gel isolates things enough that there is no conduit for exchange. Or maybe the rate of exchange is just too slow to be reasonable.
More to the point however is the presumed lack of other amino acids. if the source were terrestrial life contamination then you would expect other amino acids besides glycine. This suggests to me that if there is contamination it is industrial sources rather than biological. And if it is industrial, the carbon 13 ratio might possibly have a slightly different ratio than living matter.
But as I said this is a bit of wriggling.
1) it was scooped from earth or another planet with life by the comet: dubious
2) a planet with life somewhere got crushed and the ejected material that formed the comet got some amino acids in it. weakly possible.
3) Given it's been shown that freezing primordial materials found in space actually promotes the formation of nucleic acids, it might not be much of a reach to suppose that there are natural processes in cold space that will form amino acids.
4) there are life forms that live on comets. presumably then panspermia is ubiquitous.
5) the gel got contaminated on earth. or the mass spec is not definitive about the molecule in question.
I lean towards 5, and then 3 as a close second. Of course 4 would be interesting, as it's direct panspermia. But if indeed the building blocks of life as we know it pervade the universe and occur naturally it also suggests there probably are a lot of similar nucloetide/peptide base life forms out there.
Seems like a plane built overseas is not really going to as attractive to the defense folks.
One can't resist a bit of glee at their troubles. The company ditched it's Seattle roots, moved to Chicago, then sought to layoff its US workers by outsourcing it's manufacturing capability. So it's satisfying to see this strategy ruin cause pain and not be such a good deal.
On the other hand given the global downturn it's not such a bad time to behind schedule. Airbus is going to eat it on the over sized beast they bet on, and the 787 is likely to look like the right size going forward.
Well, historically Democrats are in bed with the Hollywood types so it's not a certain thing that media owners might not see some love too.
But besides that I blame this on google. Yes google and their don't be evil motto. Seems like there's this fixed amount of evil and if one company tries not to use evil then it just accumulates somewhere else.
Except the company suing them aren't patent trolls. If you took a minute to check out their site, they legitimately offer services that directly relate to what they're suing about.
First off I would have to disagree that your assertionis correct (see below). But at the same time I would assert that the technique in question might be on the hairy edge of patentable, making them legitimate--maybe.
Okay so what is the patent about? Well it's not about using XML to store documents. It's about a somewhat specific way of storing xml for documents in file systems or streams that has gains some efficiency over the conventional XML format. Specifically you write the documents plain text out as raw plain text without any XML tags. Then in separate location you write our all the xml tags. After each tag you write a pointer to the chearacter position in the plain text where the tag needs to go. The claim is this means that if you change formats you don't have to re-write the file with the plain text thus making it a lot faster to update (and you can imagine stream on the cloud). The second patented feature is that this allows one to store multiple "views". That is one could have multiple different xml tag sets for the same text body. Besides simply being a view, this is useful also for undo's
So you can see this pertains basically to "fast saves" of big documents, and possibly to cloud applications.
It's pretty easy to imagine other ways to skln this cat if you had too. FOr example, store diffs which I think is how the older MS fast saves work anyhow. But in the cloud world I bet just using XML views rather than diffs is slightly more javascript freindly given all the existing XML based code. plus it makes i more of an open standard.
SO while MS could work around this, it will make the resulting document less open format. a terrible irony.
One could question howver if this is really patent worthy. I'd say maybe. it does have tangible advantages and back when it was patented it might have been the first time for xml to be encoded this way (I have no idea on that). But it also seems kinda obvious. Many XML documents sort of do that in a way already. They insert some labeled format tag which we call a "style" then put the detailed XML description of that "style" in the document header. SOr example apple's pages does that, and presumbaly most processors with style sheets have done that. But that's still a bit different than actuall pointers.
So maybe maybe it's patent worthy. I'd say no. but it's arguable.
ANyhow getting back to the parent's assertion that they market this, well thats nonsense. this is a technique that once you tell it to someone is generic. No one would hire you to implement it for their own product so you can't sell any services here. And any specific implementation is irrelevant. FOr example this is not going to affect their competitiveness in selling a word processor.
I've had a simmilar experience. I am a subject matter expert on a particular area of optical physics and periodically edit a section I initiated. Lately I find these edits reverted within minutes. it's truly aggravating. It's not for lack of citations since the citations there contain the info. and Moreover many of the edits I make are neutral in content but simply refactor the description or consolidate repetitious parts. Sometimes I this revert battle goes on and on.
uh... isn't bee Pollen one of those things they put in the energy pills they sell at the gas-n-go mini marts? Maybe they should add some pollen to that sugar water.
also isn't giving Bee's sugar going to prevent them from bothering with the flowers they are supposed to be pollinating? after all they visit flowers for sugar not pollen. The pollen is just symbiotic side-efffect.
The story blurb was an interesting one aside from the gratuitous flamebait question at the end. Don't the editors do any editing at all. if not we need a new name for the slashdot editors. They seem to have the same no-added value functionality of the men's room attendants who are there to hand you a towel as thought you could not get one yourself.
When tunes are stored on an ipod they are stored in a way that creates a speedbump to just trasnfering them off. basically the names are munged. Maybe they mess with the id3 tags--don't know. But apple has long been a proponent of speedbump DRM, that is drm that gets in your way enough that most users won't hassle with defeating it.
The real trick that apple accomplished was convincing the music companies that this was sufficient protection.
IN return apple probably has to make a reasonable effort to prevent cases where pod-to-pod transfers all proliferation of music. this would include nominal efforts to never have a legitimate channel for this.
they won't care if it's not perfect. But they probably are obligated to try.
if this is to become a game then apple could turn the tables. Have itunes interrogate the other features the palm exposes
I smell an "iTunes compatibility mode"... all Palm-specific features disabled so iTunes still can't tell the difference. ;)
Okay then let's say itunes just waits for the one time you plug it in before turning on compatibility mode. itunes then pushes over 1000 songs that are fingerprinted in a special way. Maybe they are all car alarms and babies crying. or just diminished audio quality. or maybe nothing youo can tell at all. But then the next time you try to update even in compatibility mode, itunes recognizes the fingerprint and intentionally malfunctions. it will be enought to drive you batty if the malfunction is cleverly chosen (e.g. transfers over songs with buzzing sounds in the background so you think your speaker is busted).
Theres only so much though that Apple can do short of killing compatibility with older iPods. Eventually Apple will just have to give up.
Well yes and no. first it means that the functionality palm can offer may not always be able to exceed that of the old iphones. Suppose for example while simple tunes transfer may be possibel by emulating the old ipod, suppose that new digital ipods or ones with camera would be more recognizable by itunes and so itunes would refuse to transfer over video or voice memos from an old ipod which is not supposed to have those capabilities. SO you can only get so far pretending to be an old ipod.
second, if this is to become a game then apple could turn the tables. Have itunes interrogate the other features the palm exposes. that is, when a palm plugs in it has to do more than just look like an old ipod. it has to also have some sort of palm specific conduit for address books and other phone features. apple could have itunes hunt for those to determine the phone is a pseudoPod.
That of course ratchets things up a notch, so apple may not want to drop that bomb for a long time. But it's hard to see how palm could escape that without being in the same boat-- breaking compatibility for older pre's
Why as a consumer would I be so dumb as to buy a palm if my itunes only worked intermittently or had no assured path forward. Sure one could perhaps use the old version of itunes while I waited for palm to fix it. But really that's not a strategy. I'm in that boat right now with my jailbroken iphone and did I not sort of enjoy the novelty of this cat and mouse game it would be a detraction not an attraction. I can't imagine most people want a phone that might not work some of the time. who needs to waste time like that?
how appropriate you are an anonymous coward.
but sorry, no, that's not how PII is defined. to exist we give our names in daily like. if you send and e-mail and expect a reply you give you e-mail address. I can't be made responsible for having either on my computer.
No, he had my prototype Killer app for the iphone.
Under federal law, all federally owned or federal contractor owned computers now have to protect PII. this means all sorts of niscances on your computer as well as big penalties for you personally if you lose a laptop and the PII as not adequately secured.
fortunately e-mail addreresses, phone numbers, and yes EVEN names of people are, interestingly not PII. can you image if they were? likewise IP addresses are not PII.
I think people just don't understand the concept of PII, they mis interepret the ill chosen term. PII is not something that would normally place you at risk if revealed. Sure a spammer could spam you e-mail or DOS your IPaddress but that's not what they mean. If someone knows things associated with your security like your SS ID, that is considered PII.
I think that the show is on the wrong foot with regard to SS. Basically the SS number has been overloaded with too many uses to the point where you basically have to tell people it, yet you actually are made vulnerable by this. Something needs to be done about SS numbers so they don't have to be PII.