Fair enough. But then: if you wipe the phone before the explosion, how can it be used as a detonator? And wiping the phone after the explosion seems unlikely.

I suppose you could find a way to make the explosion trigger on some signal from the phone that the remote wipe is complete, but (if I'm correct) the remote wipe won't erase the identifying contents of the SIM card anyway. Probably better to just use a disposable cell phone that doesn't have the contact list of the rest of your terrorist cell in memory in the first place.

How do you know for sure why your resumes are being chucked in the trash? My experience is not yours, but I've never had difficulty finding jobs as a programmer, even right out of college, despite the fact that my degree is in a mostly unrelated area. One way to do this is to sell your different background and perspective as a strength. It also helps if you have experience programming computers as a hobbyist, and I'm guessing that's true for you. If not, there's never a bad time to start hacking. That kind of thing can be enough to get you through the door at HR, and impress the people past them who have actual expertise.

Your tone here is somewhat self-defeating, and I honestly hope that doesn't come off in your resume or interviews. Honestly, most HR people I've worked with and known have been more concerned with personality and attitude rather than technical qualifications. Maybe it's not the best way to get qualified people into jobs, but the fact is that they are the gatekeepers. Presentation matters.

I don't think eligibility is the right concept when it comes to job applications. Apply for every job you want to do, and that you think you can do. Never let the assumption that you'll be dismissed out of hand prevent you from trying. Some (inept) HR managers will throw your resume in the trash, and what have you lost if they do? The cost of a stamp and the fifteen minutes it takes to customize a cover letter? But if you sell yourself in the right way, some (canny) HR people will at least consider you enough to give you an interview.

Most coffee shops and libraries where I've used Wi-Fi have traffic routed through a proxy. It's the smart way to do it. My guess (hope) would be that that is an additional, accepted form of security.

Optimistically, because the German lawmakers involved believe the public good of fining people who don't secure their wireless networks (fewer innocent people for copyright holders to go after) exceeds the harm to the individual caused by disallowing it (the nanny state prevents you from doing something really stupid anyway).

Disagreement with this is entirely reasonable. If you are a German citizen and you don't approve, try to gain popular support to overturn the law, and use the power of your vote to oust the politicians who supported it. If you are not a German citizen, perhaps don't move there?

It's incredibly easy to connect to an unsecured wireless network. It's even easy to do it accidentally with many devices and configurations. There's no way I'm aware of to accidentally crack even the poorest wireless security, it requires actual malicious effort, small though it may be. I believe that, in this case, it's reasonable to draw the line at "anything more than nothing."

The analogy doesn't work. First of all, the act of hot-wiring itself requires malicious intent, and a circumvention of reasonable security. Even if you left your keys in the ignition, the only aspect of the crime you could be said to be responsible for would be the theft itself, and since you're the victim in that case, who cares? At worst, your insurance wouldn't pay out due to negligence.

Regardless, reasonable people who don't want their cars stolen secure their vehicle, at least by not leaving the keys in it. And reasonable people (especially who live in an area where it's illegal to run an unsecured wireless network) secure their wireless network. If for no better reason than to avoid dealing with bullshit RIAA copyright claims that have nothing to do with them.

You know, I never did understand that criticism. "Why would anyone buy a 21" monitor? It's just a big 13" monitor!"

Sorry but the accelerated use of plastics and cheap alloys isn't an accident or an improvement in cars.

There is the benefit that a largely plastic car that deforms on impact absorbs a lot of the energy that would otherwise be transferred to the occupants during a collision. I know I'd much rather be in a squishy modern car than a solid steel behemoth if I'm going to crash into something.

Lots of people use their mod points to mean either "+1 I agree!" or "-1 You're wrong, moron!" Sucks, but it's true.

I'm sad to see a very interesting alternative disappear, but:

I find this claim hard to make with such certainty. It's obviously different, but I can think of at least two ways it's not better:

1.) The music you "bought" for web streaming is only available as long as Lala stays open. Corporations are amoral and self interested, and the risk that that ability would be taken away due to any number of reasons was always there. That's not to say that it was wrong or foolish of anyone to take on the risk of using the service, but that risk is present and worth being aware of. Also note that this doesn't strictly rely on Apple being "evil", it was the nature of the arrangement. They could have gone out of business due to non-profitability, or a number of other possibilities. Note that currently, if you buy DRM'd content from iTunes (this does not include music, but does include App Store content), you're in a very similar position with regard to the risk you're choosing to take on.

2.) Streaming music online limits you to those times when you have an internet connection. If your use case for music ever involves playback on a device not connected to the internet, as far as I know, your Lala music is out. This type of case does seem to be shrinking, though.

iTunes of course has complimentary disadvantages: the music is quite a bit more expensive, and hosting, storing, and backing up the files is up to the end user. But you get to keep them forever, even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow, which is a plus

Also, if the Lala business model is really a profitable one, I'm pretty sure someone else will try to do it.

So I'll buy it, and they won't. I'm not about to boycott a product I want because it doesn't have a feature I don't want.

When a product comes out that doesn't let me do what I want, I'll refuse to buy it. Not before. Slippery slope arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me.

Do you really think you know what I want better than I do? Voting with your wallet means not buying a product you don't support. It doesn't mean trying to force other people to conform to your wishes.

Only kind of true. Everything but Opera Mini is a wrapper around WebKit, which is Safari's rendering engine. Opera Mini isn't, but it basically fetches trimmed down, static versions of web pages proxied through Opera's servers. All javascript is interpreted on the servers before it's sent to the phone, which is why it doesn't run afoul of the portion of the developer agreement that forbids interpreters that locks out other browsers.

This isn't a deal breaker for me, but I'd like it to get better.

First of all, I never said the deal never changed. I said the specific things he mentioned have always been impossible, and he must have known that.

Second of all, he's clearly not an iPhone developer, which means the agreement that changed has never applied to him in any way. Only people who agree to its terms have restrictions placed upon them in exchange for the ability to develop. In fact, ordinary iPhone users have no legal restrictions of any kind about what they can do with their hardware, it's just that Apple makes going outside the app store model intentionally difficult. You have to jailbreak your phone to do it, but jailbreaking is not a crime, and violates no agreement I am aware of. If it is, then I certainly don't like it.

You are so very angry that I fear you aren't thinking clearly. I'm trying to be reasonable, but you're frothing at the mouth.

First of all, the specific objections in the comment I replied to have remained constant. He didn't say anything about the terms change. Second of all it's been clear for a long time that the app store is Apple's playground, and that their judgments are often arbitrary and almost universally final. To use anything other than their sanctioned development tools and then pretend you're surprised when they pull the rug out from under you is the real willful ignorance.

Truly, your civility is matched only by your wit.

I see two main reasons for preserving the natural world:

1.) That our reckless behaviour with respect to the Earth could be against our self-interest as a species. We still very much rely on the biosphere to stay alive, yet we don't fully understand it. Every risk we take with respect to it is worth consideration and evaluation. We are capable of doing enough damage to either make existence very difficult, or render ourselves extinct. The Earth itself, and life in general, will probably shrug that off, and that's cool. But I'd like us to stick around for the long haul.

2.) Its destruction offends our sensibilities. Lots of people want some semblance of the natural world external to humanity to be preserved for lots of other reasons, many of which are completely subjective. That's their right.