An application you installed on a system to be able to access the data on that system.
Now, should the offending app get pulled from the store? I should hope so. I would think that the developer agreement to get on the app store includes something about making proper use of that data.
Here's something you should be worried about, too - any app you install on a computer can access your address book on that computer! In fact, there are public API's to make it easy! OMG!
I'd say it's largely because they're doing it on a market that has traditionally been incredibly closed and controlled. Phones have never been an open platform.
You can argue that Windows mobile or Symbian are more open in what apps they allow, but you need to be both *good* and open before anyone cares. The ability to install any app you want is nice, but secondary to have an app you want to install in the first place.
And you won't get far in diplomacy if you buy your own propaganda that your enemies are mad.
Even in that case, madmen can be reasoned with. Castro would have fired his nukes if he thought Cuba was invaded, but he still bowed to soviet pressure and went along with them being removed.
The "dick waving competition" as you put it is a huge deal in international politics. Countries with nuclear weapons do *not* get invaded. No matter how quickly the US/Russian/Chinese conventional military could blow through your half-trained thugs of an army, they will not invade or depose you because the threat of a nuclear launch is always there.
Some studies have actually shown that countries tend to act more reasonably once nuclear weapons are involved, as it helps introduce a more stable balance of power. A larger power can't invade you, but similarly, there are few things more worthless politically than a spent nuke. If you ever do launch, you know the combined might of the world is going to turn your cities radioactive. So it tends to quiet down the smaller countries as well, as they have to start acting like responsible states or risk obliteration instead of mere sanctions or invasions.
The difficulty comes in I think my bad choices are better than your bad choices, and try to force you to change yours. We should pick our battles on that front carefully, and personally I don't think regulating what people are allowed to eat is pretty high up there.
One car show did a similar test with a new compact versus a car with a huge reputation for safety - a 1990-ish Volvo stationwagon. I have personally had my mother in law talk about how she didn't want her daughter driving an unsafe small car, so she should take the old volvo. The volvo crushed the passenger compartment, the new compact was fine.
Although I am curious to see a comparison of how much space is needed to provide forage/sustenance for a horse versus the whole supply chain to produce a bicycle. I can't see any way for horses to scale up to provide transport for a modern city, though.
Bicycles are far too hard on the environment. You have to mine the iron and aluminum ore and burn coal to process it. That not even counting the (imported) petroleum in the great grease, vulcanized rubber in the wheels, and poly-something-or-other foam in the seat.
Go for the original in environmentally friendly transportation - horses! And when your old model wears out, you can recycle it into glue and dog food!
I've had a similar experience at several local auto parts stores. They'll plug in the reader and say "oh, this is your problem, it doesn't really matter, the ECU just got confused when you did x and y. Unfortunately, if I were to press *this* button (presses the button) to clear it, instead of making you take it to a dealership, I'd be violating the law regarding these codes. Have a good day."
I haven't seen a study, but I've spoken with various administrators. I know it was the case at my school, a relatively small and not particularly affluent rural high school.
I never said football pays for America's education. I said it pays for itself, and for other athletics. Tennis, wrestling, volleyball, and track do not normally pay for themselves - football and basketball pay for them. But overall sports have money available because parents and the community pay to go see them, not because they are allocated more money out of the school's general budget. It's actually much more egalitarian funding than the rest of the school's activities - it's paid by people who want to come see the games.
What I meant by the band comment was this - how many schools would still field a marching band if there were no football games for them to play at? How many people are exposed to the band at a football game that would never think to come to a concert? The community exposure is extremely valuable when it comes to growing the donor base for bands and other activities.
In many schools, football pays for itself and the entire rest of the extracurricular budget. They aren't taking away from science at all to field a football team - they're giving the nerds (at least, those of you who seem to hate your bodies enough to not enjoy sports) a big concert venue for the band and funding for other extracurriculars.
According to the Ars write-up, the features are missing because Quicktime was completely rewritten to be a more modern codebase. Among other things, this was required to be able to get it to run on the iPhone. Unfortunately, this also means that some features are still missing. Apple has told developers that they intend on bring Quicktime X back to the level of Pro soon.
Also, some of the awesome features of Quicktime Pro were so embedded in the system that they caused a real problem for movie viewing. Most media formats stream data in a way that quicktime doesn't like - it wasn't to know when the beginning and end are so it can do all of its fancy frame-by-frame selections. So if you read in a divx avi file with an mp3 soundtrack, it had to load the entire file, generate its editing information, and convert it to a.mov in the background to even play it. Hopefully they can find a way to do the best of both worlds in the new version once it finally gets up to snuff.
The amazing thing about Frankling is that he seems to have been completely the fat, balding, pony-tailed hacker, and he *still* got all the chicks he could want. Guy was some kind of geek god.
I know this comment thread is dead, but I thought you might be interested.
The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds.
How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef?
* 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year).
* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain.
* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain.
* Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is.45 pound (.35 pound for cows).
Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing.
Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen.
Most farmers I have talked to don't send the cows to feedlot until they are at least yearlings. I have no idea if that is representative of other parts of the country, but it seems to be fairly standard here.
Also note that this is beef cattle only - the breeding herd and milk cows are not sent to a feedlot. I know the story was about beef cattle, but it is a likely that since cows are selected for beef or breeding after they are born, it would be impossible to have your breeding herd cattle feel pain while your feedlot cattle do not.
If you're concerned about this, I'm curious what alternative you would suggest. I see a few
1) Everyone becomes vegetarian. Yay... except for most of the world's population likes meat, we evolved to eat it, it's part of our culture, and it's tasy. So you'd probably have to force people to do it. Lose for rights there. And what do we do with all the cattle? Can't let them roam free or they'll start running through town making a big mess. They can't survive roaming free because they've had a symbiotic relationship with humans for thousands of years. So I guess 90% of the cattle population goes away.
2) We regulate farms! Farmers have to do grass fed beef (which they already do a fair amount of - the corn-mash feedlot is usually only used for the last few months of their life to fatten them for market. Breeding herds are allowed to graze as long as weather permits). Meat becomes expensive, so only the rich can afford it. Hey, that's how it was fifty years ago! Remember that "A chicken in every pot" wishful-thinking dream? We've achieved it a hundred ties over because modern farming methods make meat cheap. Not a very egalitarian position to take here, either.
3) We let the animal welfare conscious spend extra for their grass fed beef (so nice to know that witless creature you had someone else slaughter for you had a happy life before it died) or be vegan themselves, and let the rest of the world enjoy spending their money on things that matter to them instead of more "moral" beef.
I'm curious how you would kill the unfit or unusable livestock quickly and humanely? That grinder may *look* horrifying, but it seems to be quick. It's actually quite a bit more humanely than most "animal rights" organizations deal with the pets they collect http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
Or what you would do with the male chicks when they aren't worth the cost of feed and labor to raise them to maturity? Farming is a business, and a business that does *not* pay well for individual farmers. It is not a charity for unwanted roosters.
Yes, I'm sure the hundreds upon hundreds of farms I've passed and visited while living in the middle of rural America for my entire life are *completely* unrepresentative of how beef cattle are raised in this area.
And the people around here sell to whomever buys it - often McDonald's or Wendy's.
Most people raise their cattle on a mix of grass and corn - it's *expensive* to raise cattle purely on corn. There's a reason most of the state is fenced with barbed wire.
They had schools for the gifted where you live? We only had an extra class once a week.
There are so many parallel problems in education - how to educate the slow, the average, the gifted. How to teach those who learn best by doing, or by reading theory. Those whose interest is in math, history, art, music, sports, language. How to teach socialization and personal conduct.
And instead of admitting that we have a million different ways kids need to learn we shove everyone into blender for eight hours a day and expect them to learn something and not hate it. Of course, dealing with the system is a lesson in its own right.
Sometimes I really wonder where we'd be if the schools would just admit that people's abilities aren't 100% equal and place you according to your ability in each area.
Eating meat is actually a very cool bit of technology for which I'm pretty sure we have no modern replacement. How else do you convert solar energy into something we can digest using land that is too dry and poor to grow anything but grass on it? Herding was a huge technical development in that it allowed humans to live in areas that were previously inhospitable.
I noticed that when I went to the livestock judging at the local fair recently. It was all kids' 4-H projects, and the judges were taking very careful time to explain how important it was that you handle the livestock gently, as bruised meat is essentially worthless.
I know some farming operations are rougher than others (factory farmed chickens for example), but all of the beef cattle I see raised around here spend most of their days pretty much the same as they do in the wild - wandering around through a wide open field eating grass.
From what I've read, at the time AT&T was the only carrier that would allow Apple the control over the phone design that they wanted, and would upgrade their voicemail infrastructure to allow visual voicemail. The success of the iphone has caused other handset manufacturers to demand similar allowances from their carriers.
You have a LAN anywhere you have two laptops with wifi cards. I've been on numerous bus trips where there were 2-4 guys playing SC in the back with their laptops.
Also, as someone who got stuck for a month without internet access of any kind the last time I moved, I am sick of companies requiring their games to have net access. i thought to myself "oh, a nice month to play through all of these single player games I've been putting off to play WoW." and instead all I got was a bunch of Steam errors.
Slashdot Mirror
An application you installed on a system to be able to access the data on that system.
Now, should the offending app get pulled from the store? I should hope so. I would think that the developer agreement to get on the app store includes something about making proper use of that data.
Here's something you should be worried about, too - any app you install on a computer can access your address book on that computer! In fact, there are public API's to make it easy! OMG!
I'd say it's largely because they're doing it on a market that has traditionally been incredibly closed and controlled. Phones have never been an open platform.
You can argue that Windows mobile or Symbian are more open in what apps they allow, but you need to be both *good* and open before anyone cares. The ability to install any app you want is nice, but secondary to have an app you want to install in the first place.
And you won't get far in diplomacy if you buy your own propaganda that your enemies are mad.
Even in that case, madmen can be reasoned with. Castro would have fired his nukes if he thought Cuba was invaded, but he still bowed to soviet pressure and went along with them being removed.
The "dick waving competition" as you put it is a huge deal in international politics. Countries with nuclear weapons do *not* get invaded. No matter how quickly the US/Russian/Chinese conventional military could blow through your half-trained thugs of an army, they will not invade or depose you because the threat of a nuclear launch is always there.
Some studies have actually shown that countries tend to act more reasonably once nuclear weapons are involved, as it helps introduce a more stable balance of power. A larger power can't invade you, but similarly, there are few things more worthless politically than a spent nuke. If you ever do launch, you know the combined might of the world is going to turn your cities radioactive. So it tends to quiet down the smaller countries as well, as they have to start acting like responsible states or risk obliteration instead of mere sanctions or invasions.
The fact is that people do not make good choices.
The difficulty comes in I think my bad choices are better than your bad choices, and try to force you to change yours. We should pick our battles on that front carefully, and personally I don't think regulating what people are allowed to eat is pretty high up there.
One car show did a similar test with a new compact versus a car with a huge reputation for safety - a 1990-ish Volvo stationwagon. I have personally had my mother in law talk about how she didn't want her daughter driving an unsafe small car, so she should take the old volvo. The volvo crushed the passenger compartment, the new compact was fine.
It scares me that people take me seriously.
Although I am curious to see a comparison of how much space is needed to provide forage/sustenance for a horse versus the whole supply chain to produce a bicycle. I can't see any way for horses to scale up to provide transport for a modern city, though.
Bicycles are far too hard on the environment. You have to mine the iron and aluminum ore and burn coal to process it. That not even counting the (imported) petroleum in the great grease, vulcanized rubber in the wheels, and poly-something-or-other foam in the seat.
Go for the original in environmentally friendly transportation - horses! And when your old model wears out, you can recycle it into glue and dog food!
I've had a similar experience at several local auto parts stores. They'll plug in the reader and say "oh, this is your problem, it doesn't really matter, the ECU just got confused when you did x and y. Unfortunately, if I were to press *this* button (presses the button) to clear it, instead of making you take it to a dealership, I'd be violating the law regarding these codes. Have a good day."
I haven't seen a study, but I've spoken with various administrators. I know it was the case at my school, a relatively small and not particularly affluent rural high school.
I never said football pays for America's education. I said it pays for itself, and for other athletics. Tennis, wrestling, volleyball, and track do not normally pay for themselves - football and basketball pay for them. But overall sports have money available because parents and the community pay to go see them, not because they are allocated more money out of the school's general budget. It's actually much more egalitarian funding than the rest of the school's activities - it's paid by people who want to come see the games.
What I meant by the band comment was this - how many schools would still field a marching band if there were no football games for them to play at? How many people are exposed to the band at a football game that would never think to come to a concert? The community exposure is extremely valuable when it comes to growing the donor base for bands and other activities.
In many schools, football pays for itself and the entire rest of the extracurricular budget. They aren't taking away from science at all to field a football team - they're giving the nerds (at least, those of you who seem to hate your bodies enough to not enjoy sports) a big concert venue for the band and funding for other extracurriculars.
What I meant was that hopefully future version of QTX will be able to handle this directly instead of hacking it off to QT7.
According to the Ars write-up, the features are missing because Quicktime was completely rewritten to be a more modern codebase. Among other things, this was required to be able to get it to run on the iPhone. Unfortunately, this also means that some features are still missing. Apple has told developers that they intend on bring Quicktime X back to the level of Pro soon.
Also, some of the awesome features of Quicktime Pro were so embedded in the system that they caused a real problem for movie viewing. Most media formats stream data in a way that quicktime doesn't like - it wasn't to know when the beginning and end are so it can do all of its fancy frame-by-frame selections. So if you read in a divx avi file with an mp3 soundtrack, it had to load the entire file, generate its editing information, and convert it to a .mov in the background to even play it. Hopefully they can find a way to do the best of both worlds in the new version once it finally gets up to snuff.
The amazing thing about Frankling is that he seems to have been completely the fat, balding, pony-tailed hacker, and he *still* got all the chicks he could want. Guy was some kind of geek god.
I know this comment thread is dead, but I thought you might be interested.
The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds.
How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef?
* 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). .45 pound (.35 pound for cows).
* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain.
* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain.
* Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is
Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing.
Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen.
From http://ars.sdstate.edu/animaliss/beef.html
Most farmers I have talked to don't send the cows to feedlot until they are at least yearlings. I have no idea if that is representative of other parts of the country, but it seems to be fairly standard here.
Also note that this is beef cattle only - the breeding herd and milk cows are not sent to a feedlot. I know the story was about beef cattle, but it is a likely that since cows are selected for beef or breeding after they are born, it would be impossible to have your breeding herd cattle feel pain while your feedlot cattle do not.
If you're concerned about this, I'm curious what alternative you would suggest. I see a few
1) Everyone becomes vegetarian. Yay... except for most of the world's population likes meat, we evolved to eat it, it's part of our culture, and it's tasy. So you'd probably have to force people to do it. Lose for rights there. And what do we do with all the cattle? Can't let them roam free or they'll start running through town making a big mess. They can't survive roaming free because they've had a symbiotic relationship with humans for thousands of years. So I guess 90% of the cattle population goes away.
2) We regulate farms! Farmers have to do grass fed beef (which they already do a fair amount of - the corn-mash feedlot is usually only used for the last few months of their life to fatten them for market. Breeding herds are allowed to graze as long as weather permits). Meat becomes expensive, so only the rich can afford it. Hey, that's how it was fifty years ago! Remember that "A chicken in every pot" wishful-thinking dream? We've achieved it a hundred ties over because modern farming methods make meat cheap. Not a very egalitarian position to take here, either.
3) We let the animal welfare conscious spend extra for their grass fed beef (so nice to know that witless creature you had someone else slaughter for you had a happy life before it died) or be vegan themselves, and let the rest of the world enjoy spending their money on things that matter to them instead of more "moral" beef.
I'm curious how you would kill the unfit or unusable livestock quickly and humanely? That grinder may *look* horrifying, but it seems to be quick. It's actually quite a bit more humanely than most "animal rights" organizations deal with the pets they collect http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
Or what you would do with the male chicks when they aren't worth the cost of feed and labor to raise them to maturity? Farming is a business, and a business that does *not* pay well for individual farmers. It is not a charity for unwanted roosters.
Yes, I'm sure the hundreds upon hundreds of farms I've passed and visited while living in the middle of rural America for my entire life are *completely* unrepresentative of how beef cattle are raised in this area.
And the people around here sell to whomever buys it - often McDonald's or Wendy's.
Most people raise their cattle on a mix of grass and corn - it's *expensive* to raise cattle purely on corn. There's a reason most of the state is fenced with barbed wire.
They had schools for the gifted where you live? We only had an extra class once a week.
There are so many parallel problems in education - how to educate the slow, the average, the gifted. How to teach those who learn best by doing, or by reading theory. Those whose interest is in math, history, art, music, sports, language. How to teach socialization and personal conduct.
And instead of admitting that we have a million different ways kids need to learn we shove everyone into blender for eight hours a day and expect them to learn something and not hate it. Of course, dealing with the system is a lesson in its own right.
Sometimes I really wonder where we'd be if the schools would just admit that people's abilities aren't 100% equal and place you according to your ability in each area.
Eating meat is actually a very cool bit of technology for which I'm pretty sure we have no modern replacement. How else do you convert solar energy into something we can digest using land that is too dry and poor to grow anything but grass on it? Herding was a huge technical development in that it allowed humans to live in areas that were previously inhospitable.
I noticed that when I went to the livestock judging at the local fair recently. It was all kids' 4-H projects, and the judges were taking very careful time to explain how important it was that you handle the livestock gently, as bruised meat is essentially worthless.
I know some farming operations are rougher than others (factory farmed chickens for example), but all of the beef cattle I see raised around here spend most of their days pretty much the same as they do in the wild - wandering around through a wide open field eating grass.
I wonder whether he brought a version with a no-cd crack. That CD probably adds several thousand dollars worth of weight.
From what I've read, at the time AT&T was the only carrier that would allow Apple the control over the phone design that they wanted, and would upgrade their voicemail infrastructure to allow visual voicemail. The success of the iphone has caused other handset manufacturers to demand similar allowances from their carriers.
You have a LAN anywhere you have two laptops with wifi cards. I've been on numerous bus trips where there were 2-4 guys playing SC in the back with their laptops.
Also, as someone who got stuck for a month without internet access of any kind the last time I moved, I am sick of companies requiring their games to have net access. i thought to myself "oh, a nice month to play through all of these single player games I've been putting off to play WoW." and instead all I got was a bunch of Steam errors.
Actually, speaking of that... are there any WWII movies you can think of that have dogfighting scenes as fun as those in Star Wars?