If we make a call, that phone number is transmitted to the person we are calling. If we install an app on the iPhone, while all items on the phone we can expect to be private, I think a case can be made for and against the phone number.
When I make a call, I understand that the person will receive my phone number. When I play a game of backgammon, I don't expect my number to be harvested. Tell you what--if you don't think this is a big deal, go ahead and post your phone number here on slashdot.
I've been amused recently as the iPhone Fanbois go on and on about how the App Store is such a great thing because Apple will protect their private information.
I'll bow to people smarter than me, but I have to be curious.
So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.
So how many years does it have to not conform to the models before we question the climate models? Five? Ten? 30?
Why the switch from global warming to climate change. In fact why are they used interchangeably by many? Most scientists are very careful to focus on climate change, whereas most common folk call it global warming?
Well, part of it has to do with the ignorance of the "common folk" of anything beyond their own area.
This year, where I live, has been colder than "normal." Therefore, global warming is obviously a myth because it's certainly not warmer this year.
I've heard this argument more than a few times from the "common folk." One good cold snap and everyone is talking about how the whole "global warming" thing is bupkis. One good heat wave and everyone is back concerned about "global warming."
There is no other app-store that an iPhone user can select to purchase their apps from.
I agree, but I'd like to add a thing or two.
There is a completely unencumbered way of producing applications for the iPhone which Apple supports--namely, the web. I've been pleasantly surprised that there are plenty of iPhone-customized web pages. I was able to keep track of my favorite football team today by going to CBS Sports' website. I can watch Star Trek episodes at CBS as well. I'm able to check traffic for my commute home via sigalert.com. I can play Solitaire. Heck, I can even read Slashdot.
And all this without an App. Without Apple standing around and saying what the developer can and can't do.
Now, obviously a web app isn't appropriate for everything. There are lots of games that can't be done--or done well--via a web app. Things like tip calculators would also be kind of silly to require Internet access to use. So it isn't a perfect solution. But I've never understood Apps like Yelp, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc. They don't need high-power graphics. They're useless without the Internet. So why do them as an App?
I think Apple should support an installer so that users can download an application from the web and install it. I have no problem with Apple putting up a warning saying that horrible things could happen if you download and run applications that they have not approved. I think it would actually make the App Store better because Apple could decide that they have enough tip calculators, digital whoopie cushions, etc. and could reject ridiculous applications, making the App Store much more useful.
While I wouldn't bet against it, I'd tend to doubt it.
Apple prides itself on it's thin, lightweight, and attractive notebooks/desktops. They're not necessarily into the whole "faster is better" concept--if you're concerned with speed above all else, consider the Mac Pro.
While I'm far from an expert, from what I can see from the graphs, these appear to run hotter than the Core 2 Duos that Apple uses now. I'm not sure that MacBook Pros can stand to get much hotter than they already are.
Maybe you'll see them in the iMac. They appear to be better in regards to power than the Core 2 Quads and are pretty close in the benchmarks.
From what I understand, this is being investigated on a Federal level. So there isn't an issue about leaving your state.
As for leaving the country, there are already checkpoints there. So, conceivably, your odometer could be checked before you cross the border between the US and Canada/Mexico and checked again when you re-enter the country.
If you stick someone else's data in OSM, guess who gets sued? They do.
So if you went down a road and noted the speed limits and GPS coordinates on the road where that speed is, I'm sure OSM will welcome your data with open arms. But if you grabbed it from some other site and figured, "Hey, it's on the Internet so it must be free," you've got another think coming.
Right now, for example, I'm trying to find out whether or not I can use bike lane information from OCTA. I've modified a few roads that I know have bike lanes because I've ridden them. But I can't just copy the data off the map until I find out whether or not I have permission.
Whenever somebody brings up robots, I always like to bring up moon rocks.
The Soviet Union sent 10 robots to the Moon in order to return samples attempts to the Earth. Three of them were successful, returning 0.326 kilograms of lunar soil to the Earth. The United States sent 7 manned missions to the moon. 6 of them were successful, returning 381.7 kilograms of soil and rocks to the Earth.
However, the knowledge and technology is there (as has been shown by the X-Prize) for space exploration to go private.
I somewhat disagree.
The knowledge and technology is there for low-earth orbit transportation to go private. The only reason for NASA to have a low-earth orbit transportation system is for "the government" so we don't have to worry about the vagaries of privately owned businesses (remember that private companies can get bought by other companies, some of which may not necessarily be American companies).
The issue with space exploration going private is that there isn't really necessarily a business case "to boldly go where no one has gone before."
You have 1.5 hours to workout, shower, and get ready to go. How much of that time do you want to spend in transit?
I think his implication was that most of these people are driving a short distance.
The argument is that if, instead of driving to the gym to work out, you jogged to the gym and worked out, you probably wouldn't need to spend as long in the gym. So the time spent "in transit" is actually part of your workout.
The point is that Apple had many thousands of people standing in line to buy their phone. These people were standing in line to give Apple money for a phone.
If Apple had released the phone unlocked, do you think those people would have said, "Oh, I guess I won't buy it if I have to go find a phone provider." Like I said, AT&T and T-Mobile would be fighting with each other to be the provider!
"Look! Here's a line with 200 people who are going to buy a phone that our network supports!" "Oh, just ignore them. We don't need their money."
Consider all of those people who stood in line for an iPhone in June of 2007. Those people weren't standing in line for AT&T service. In many cases, they were standing in line in spite of having to use AT&T. I would argue that all of those people would have stood in line for an unlocked iPhone (and, arguably, more people would have stood in line for an unlocked iPhone because some people just didn't want to use AT&T).
Okay, so you have a bunch of people standing in line to buy an unlocked phone. If AT&T and T-Mobile were smart, they'd've set up booths right outside every Apple Store to activate those phones immediately. They'd've been competing against each other to convince you to sign up with them. Visual Voicemail? If Apple had published the spec, AT&T or T-Mobile would have implemented it in order to win customers. "Sign up with us--we have Visual Voicemail unlike those other bozos!" Competition would have driven down the price. Heck, even some of the small-fries could get into it: Mid-Tex Cellular might be camped in front of the Apple Store in Austin (if they cover Austin).
This is a disadvantage to Apple's "exclusive contracts."
All iPhone users are on AT&T. Thus, if they all try to use their iPhones at the same time, AT&T's network turns to sludge. However, let's say that half of the iPhone users were on T-Mobile. If all the iPhone users try to use their phones at the same time, AT&T and T-Mobile would probably be fine.
So you can blame AT&T if you want to. But the reality is that Apple is the one who decided that AT&T would have an exclusive on the iPhone. If Apple had sold the phone unlocked, you'd have a mixture of users across AT&T, T-Mobile, and probably Cellular One, iSmart, Via Wireless, and a bunch of other networks.
So you can build all the applications you want. But if you want to actually run them on your iPhone, it's $100.
"We're giving away this car for free! But if you actually want to start it and drive it, you'll need to pay $50,000 for the key. Oh, and if you somehow tinker with the car so that you don't need to use this key, the car's warranty is voided."
Nice dance, fanboi. But if you want to develop applications for your own personal use on the iPhone, it'll cost you $100.
Well, one advantage to using drugs is, in theory, if we have issues on the Moon or Mars, we merely have to adjust the dosage. It'll be tough to build a 1G chamber on the Moon. Also, the research into this problem has helped people with osteoporosis here on Earth.
That said, I tend to agree with you. Astronauts spend two-and-a-half hours per day exercising so that they don't collapse when they get back to Earth. At this risk of sounding like a cruel taskmaster, that's time that could be spent doing experiments and the other things that our tax dollars are paying for.
The worst part is that there doesn't even appear to be any research going on in this area. How much gravity is necessary? 0.5G? 0.3G? 0.1G? Could they work in 0.3G and sleep in 0G? Could they work in 0G and sleep in 0.3G? This could affect the design of long-duration spacecraft.
While the research into drugs is a good thing and helps us down here on Earth, to me it is not necessarily a good solution because you have to pack enough drugs to get them to Mars, enough drugs for them while on Mars, and enough drugs to get them back to Earth.
Which, if you read the brief description at the start of the article:
The NY Times reports on legislation in Utah which harshly penalizes people who cause fatal car accidents while texting.
So, in other words, text all you want. If you think you're so cool that you can do it and not kill anybody, great. If you're wrong, The Law will come down on you with size 15 boots.
So you have to ask yourself, are you sure you're that skilled at texting that you're willing to risk going to jail for 15 years? It's your choice.
"[...] you can have unofficial access to camera API in iPhone as well."
Unless you actually want to sell your App. When you submit it, you'll get the little note back from Apple saying that you cannot use undocumented APIs.
"You damn kids with your iPhones and Androids. Back in my day, we had to actually use our eyes, ears, and nose to avoid walking into things or getting run over!
[...] what kinda of equipment will be required to process the ice and produce potable water, oxygen and rocket fuel [...]
One interesting thing mentioned in the article is that they can already produce oxygen from lunar minerals. The sun is sending a nice stream of hydrogen via the solar winds. This can be combined to produce potable water without having to process any ice whatsoever.
The question is whether it would "better" to melt the ice and filter it into something drinkable or to make the water from hydrogen and oxygen.
Looking to help better understand how space weather affects a variety of everyday consumer technologies, including global positioning systems, satellites for television reception, and cellular phones, researchers at Virginia Tech's Space@VT research group got a $2 million grant to build a chain of space weather instrument stations in Antarctica.
Hey, VT guys? There's not a whole lot of consumer technologies in Antarctica. That's because there aren't a whole lot of consumers in Antarctica.
I mean, one doesn't seem to necessarily go with the other. It's like saying, "We're going to build a bunch of weather stations that will tell us when it's raining so we can figure out the effect of rain on consumer devices."
I suppose the concept is that if my cell phone doesn't work, I can try to correlate it with what's going on in outer space...
Slashdot Mirror
If we make a call, that phone number is transmitted to the person we are calling. If we install an app on the iPhone, while all items on the phone we can expect to be private, I think a case can be made for and against the phone number.
When I make a call, I understand that the person will receive my phone number. When I play a game of backgammon, I don't expect my number to be harvested. Tell you what--if you don't think this is a big deal, go ahead and post your phone number here on slashdot.
I've been amused recently as the iPhone Fanbois go on and on about how the App Store is such a great thing because Apple will protect their private information.
I'll bow to people smarter than me, but I have to be curious.
So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.
So how many years does it have to not conform to the models before we question the climate models? Five? Ten? 30?
Why the switch from global warming to climate change. In fact why are they used interchangeably by many? Most scientists are very careful to focus on climate change, whereas most common folk call it global warming?
Well, part of it has to do with the ignorance of the "common folk" of anything beyond their own area.
This year, where I live, has been colder than "normal." Therefore, global warming is obviously a myth because it's certainly not warmer this year.
I've heard this argument more than a few times from the "common folk." One good cold snap and everyone is talking about how the whole "global warming" thing is bupkis. One good heat wave and everyone is back concerned about "global warming."
There is no other app-store that an iPhone user can select to purchase their apps from.
I agree, but I'd like to add a thing or two.
There is a completely unencumbered way of producing applications for the iPhone which Apple supports--namely, the web. I've been pleasantly surprised that there are plenty of iPhone-customized web pages. I was able to keep track of my favorite football team today by going to CBS Sports' website. I can watch Star Trek episodes at CBS as well. I'm able to check traffic for my commute home via sigalert.com. I can play Solitaire. Heck, I can even read Slashdot.
And all this without an App. Without Apple standing around and saying what the developer can and can't do.
Now, obviously a web app isn't appropriate for everything. There are lots of games that can't be done--or done well--via a web app. Things like tip calculators would also be kind of silly to require Internet access to use. So it isn't a perfect solution. But I've never understood Apps like Yelp, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc. They don't need high-power graphics. They're useless without the Internet. So why do them as an App?
I think Apple should support an installer so that users can download an application from the web and install it. I have no problem with Apple putting up a warning saying that horrible things could happen if you download and run applications that they have not approved. I think it would actually make the App Store better because Apple could decide that they have enough tip calculators, digital whoopie cushions, etc. and could reject ridiculous applications, making the App Store much more useful.
In which case, Apple, AT&T, and Google are all lying.
By the way, if you want to use Google Voice, you still have to use the "voice plan" on your cell phone. So it doesn't hurt AT&T one bit.
While I wouldn't bet against it, I'd tend to doubt it.
Apple prides itself on it's thin, lightweight, and attractive notebooks/desktops. They're not necessarily into the whole "faster is better" concept--if you're concerned with speed above all else, consider the Mac Pro.
While I'm far from an expert, from what I can see from the graphs, these appear to run hotter than the Core 2 Duos that Apple uses now. I'm not sure that MacBook Pros can stand to get much hotter than they already are.
Maybe you'll see them in the iMac. They appear to be better in regards to power than the Core 2 Quads and are pretty close in the benchmarks.
From what I understand, this is being investigated on a Federal level. So there isn't an issue about leaving your state.
As for leaving the country, there are already checkpoints there. So, conceivably, your odometer could be checked before you cross the border between the US and Canada/Mexico and checked again when you re-enter the country.
True. But WebKit is used by Android and WebOS. Also, RIM just bought a company that makes a WebKit-based browser.
So, potentially, you're running on four of the top five platforms.
One representative at OSM told me flat out that if I used Google maps, I quote, "we can't use your data, Kapish?".
And there's a reason for that.
If you get the data from Google Maps, it isn't your data--it's Google's. And Google may have issues with you sharing their data with others.
Go to the main Google Maps page. Look at the bottom of the picture and, at least from here, you'll see "Map data ©2009 LeadDog Consulting, TeleAtlas, INEGI, Europa Technologies." Which means that they own the data--you don't. And if we click on the little link that says "Terms of Use", we'll see that you are restricted from redistributing and/or making derivative works of the data.
If you stick someone else's data in OSM, guess who gets sued? They do.
So if you went down a road and noted the speed limits and GPS coordinates on the road where that speed is, I'm sure OSM will welcome your data with open arms. But if you grabbed it from some other site and figured, "Hey, it's on the Internet so it must be free," you've got another think coming.
Right now, for example, I'm trying to find out whether or not I can use bike lane information from OCTA. I've modified a few roads that I know have bike lanes because I've ridden them. But I can't just copy the data off the map until I find out whether or not I have permission.
Whenever somebody brings up robots, I always like to bring up moon rocks.
The Soviet Union sent 10 robots to the Moon in order to return samples attempts to the Earth. Three of them were successful, returning 0.326 kilograms of lunar soil to the Earth. The United States sent 7 manned missions to the moon. 6 of them were successful, returning 381.7 kilograms of soil and rocks to the Earth.
So which mission benefitted science more?
However, the knowledge and technology is there (as has been shown by the X-Prize) for space exploration to go private.
I somewhat disagree.
The knowledge and technology is there for low-earth orbit transportation to go private. The only reason for NASA to have a low-earth orbit transportation system is for "the government" so we don't have to worry about the vagaries of privately owned businesses (remember that private companies can get bought by other companies, some of which may not necessarily be American companies).
The issue with space exploration going private is that there isn't really necessarily a business case "to boldly go where no one has gone before."
You have 1.5 hours to workout, shower, and get ready to go. How much of that time do you want to spend in transit?
I think his implication was that most of these people are driving a short distance.
The argument is that if, instead of driving to the gym to work out, you jogged to the gym and worked out, you probably wouldn't need to spend as long in the gym. So the time spent "in transit" is actually part of your workout.
Actually, you missed the point.
The point is that Apple had many thousands of people standing in line to buy their phone. These people were standing in line to give Apple money for a phone.
If Apple had released the phone unlocked, do you think those people would have said, "Oh, I guess I won't buy it if I have to go find a phone provider." Like I said, AT&T and T-Mobile would be fighting with each other to be the provider!
"Look! Here's a line with 200 people who are going to buy a phone that our network supports!"
"Oh, just ignore them. We don't need their money."
Actually, I tend to disagree.
Consider all of those people who stood in line for an iPhone in June of 2007. Those people weren't standing in line for AT&T service. In many cases, they were standing in line in spite of having to use AT&T. I would argue that all of those people would have stood in line for an unlocked iPhone (and, arguably, more people would have stood in line for an unlocked iPhone because some people just didn't want to use AT&T).
Okay, so you have a bunch of people standing in line to buy an unlocked phone. If AT&T and T-Mobile were smart, they'd've set up booths right outside every Apple Store to activate those phones immediately. They'd've been competing against each other to convince you to sign up with them. Visual Voicemail? If Apple had published the spec, AT&T or T-Mobile would have implemented it in order to win customers. "Sign up with us--we have Visual Voicemail unlike those other bozos!" Competition would have driven down the price. Heck, even some of the small-fries could get into it: Mid-Tex Cellular might be camped in front of the Apple Store in Austin (if they cover Austin).
This is a disadvantage to Apple's "exclusive contracts."
All iPhone users are on AT&T. Thus, if they all try to use their iPhones at the same time, AT&T's network turns to sludge. However, let's say that half of the iPhone users were on T-Mobile. If all the iPhone users try to use their phones at the same time, AT&T and T-Mobile would probably be fine.
So you can blame AT&T if you want to. But the reality is that Apple is the one who decided that AT&T would have an exclusive on the iPhone. If Apple had sold the phone unlocked, you'd have a mixture of users across AT&T, T-Mobile, and probably Cellular One, iSmart, Via Wireless, and a bunch of other networks.
So you can build all the applications you want. But if you want to actually run them on your iPhone, it's $100.
"We're giving away this car for free! But if you actually want to start it and drive it, you'll need to pay $50,000 for the key. Oh, and if you somehow tinker with the car so that you don't need to use this key, the car's warranty is voided."
Nice dance, fanboi. But if you want to develop applications for your own personal use on the iPhone, it'll cost you $100.
Well, one advantage to using drugs is, in theory, if we have issues on the Moon or Mars, we merely have to adjust the dosage. It'll be tough to build a 1G chamber on the Moon. Also, the research into this problem has helped people with osteoporosis here on Earth.
That said, I tend to agree with you. Astronauts spend two-and-a-half hours per day exercising so that they don't collapse when they get back to Earth. At this risk of sounding like a cruel taskmaster, that's time that could be spent doing experiments and the other things that our tax dollars are paying for.
The worst part is that there doesn't even appear to be any research going on in this area. How much gravity is necessary? 0.5G? 0.3G? 0.1G? Could they work in 0.3G and sleep in 0G? Could they work in 0G and sleep in 0.3G? This could affect the design of long-duration spacecraft.
While the research into drugs is a good thing and helps us down here on Earth, to me it is not necessarily a good solution because you have to pack enough drugs to get them to Mars, enough drugs for them while on Mars, and enough drugs to get them back to Earth.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, they may have been murderous bastards, but they were our murderous bastards.
You're gonna do what?!
Which, if you read the brief description at the start of the article:
The NY Times reports on legislation in Utah which harshly penalizes people who cause fatal car accidents while texting.
So, in other words, text all you want. If you think you're so cool that you can do it and not kill anybody, great. If you're wrong, The Law will come down on you with size 15 boots.
So you have to ask yourself, are you sure you're that skilled at texting that you're willing to risk going to jail for 15 years? It's your choice.
Of course they keep logs, but do you think the state trooper will know? Or care? Of course not, nor do most care.
Fortunately, state troopers don't prosecute such things.
"[...] you can have unofficial access to camera API in iPhone as well."
Unless you actually want to sell your App. When you submit it, you'll get the little note back from Apple saying that you cannot use undocumented APIs.
So my eyes, ears, and nose don't do that already?
"You damn kids with your iPhones and Androids. Back in my day, we had to actually use our eyes, ears, and nose to avoid walking into things or getting run over!
Now get the hell of my lawn!"
[...] what kinda of equipment will be required to process the ice and produce potable water, oxygen and rocket fuel [...]
One interesting thing mentioned in the article is that they can already produce oxygen from lunar minerals. The sun is sending a nice stream of hydrogen via the solar winds. This can be combined to produce potable water without having to process any ice whatsoever.
The question is whether it would "better" to melt the ice and filter it into something drinkable or to make the water from hydrogen and oxygen.
Looking to help better understand how space weather affects a variety of everyday consumer technologies, including global positioning systems, satellites for television reception, and cellular phones, researchers at Virginia Tech's Space@VT research group got a $2 million grant to build a chain of space weather instrument stations in Antarctica.
Hey, VT guys? There's not a whole lot of consumer technologies in Antarctica. That's because there aren't a whole lot of consumers in Antarctica.
I mean, one doesn't seem to necessarily go with the other. It's like saying, "We're going to build a bunch of weather stations that will tell us when it's raining so we can figure out the effect of rain on consumer devices."
I suppose the concept is that if my cell phone doesn't work, I can try to correlate it with what's going on in outer space...