I thought it was "Portable Document Format", so-named because everything needed to display the document (except the viewer) was built in to the file. HTML relies on external fonts and images. Word processor files also rely on external fonts. PostScript files may not render on certain devices, such as non-PostScript printers. Image files are too large and bulky, especially when stored in high enough resolution to be useful for printing (at least 300dpi, which would be 7.5 megapixels (22 MB RAW) for a single page. On the other hand, PDF's (theoretically) render the same on any OS and hardware: it should look reasonably similar on a screen and on any printer...

I've played a lot of games on consoles, PC's, handhelds, and in the arcade.

I keep seeing the same problems with multiplayer: they often ARE added in as an afterthought, and on too many games, the multi-player play is missing some vital element of the single-player mode. A big problem for me is when a game doesn't have a co-op mode, or when co-op is somehow gimped.

For example, Doom was probably the first effect multi-player game with deathmatch and co-op play, but co-op mode would suffer when you ran out of ammo: you'd spawn at the start point and try to take down massive monsters with the shotgun. Despite that, my friends and I loved playing through the game in co-op.

On the Playstation, I loved the Need for Speed series, but I got frustrated by the fact that I had to play through and unlock tracks in single-player mode before I could compete on them in multi-player mode. Mario Kart on the Wii is the same way. Why is there no multi-player quest mode that lets my kid and I unlock new tracks by playing together?

On the other hand, when you get in to MMO's, they tend to require multiple users in order to complete objectives. You can't do everything there is to do in most MMO's if you're not part of a regular group.

I think there are places for both styles of play, and they often overlap. Diablo is a good example of a game that handles both MP and solo play well: you can play co-op, PVP, or solo and have a good experience in any of the three modes. It could be better (I can think of better ways to scale difficulty than the way Diablo does it, for example), but it may be the only game I can think of that has balanced game play in any mode.

I'd like to see more developers follow this example.

You're almost right. You can intercept non-encrypted, non-cellular communications.

Actually, the FCC has specific laws in place regarding phone calls on cellular networks. You cannot, under any circumstances, listen in to a cell phone conversation without permission. That is why all radio scanners sold in the United States are required to block the AMPS cellular phone frequencies.

Aside from cell phones, it's legal to intercept any open transmission you can receive, as long as it's not encrypted. I would assume you need permission of one or both parties to decrypt encrypted communications.

From what I can tell, the OP is going to be using a femtocell modified base station that will basically act as a cellular tower. For the duration of the presentation, anyone within range of the base station will have their calls routed through his base station, rather than their regular cellular carrier. The legality of this is dubious, but it is a security seminar and presentation. It would be far safer (but less dramatic) if they staged the call, rather than actually pulling up the conversations of random people at the convention.

yeah, but would we even be having this conversation if it was called "!Poodi"?

That only makes it easiest for people who are already familiar with those tools. If you're familiar with Java then perhaps you'll prefer Android

I'm sorry, but the Eclipse GUI development environment (I don't mean Eclipse's GUI, but the environment for building GUI's) can't hold a candle to Visual Studio for ease of use.

Honestly, I think it's a funny name, too.

But is could also be interpreted as a mis-spelling of iPod, and I believe there have already been successful trademark lawsuits over misspellings.

Personally, I don't care enough about this to root for one side or the other, but I do think this was an intentional attempt to gain popularity from Apple's trademark, and that's what trademark law is supposed to prevent.

Are you kidding?

Windows CE is still possibly the most powerful mobile OS, and it's the easiest to develop for, since you can use the same tools you do for Windows development. It's still being used in Enterprise mobile devices because it has some great Enterprise features that still aren't in Android or iOS.

I'm only disappointed that Microsoft dropped the ball and let Android and iOS eclipse it. Don't get me wrong: I love my Android phones; I have three of them, but I will always have a soft spot for Windows CE.

You can call Windows CE and its derivatives ugly, buggy, slow, and even hard to use. But you cannot in fairness call it useless.

Now Windows Phone 7? I think that's a mistake.

iAgree. It's pretty much a textbook example of someone attempting to glom on to someone else's success by emulating a trademarked name.

Part of the city government's job is to coordinate emergency response.

I've small town halls that incorporate police and fire dispatch, and I've been in the emergency coordination centers in large city and county installations.

By the time you cover everything from the 911 call center, emergency response room, and things like lunch rooms and break rooms, you've got at least 20-30 TV sets running around. For the most part, they will be tuned to news channels, and you can bet they're in use during emergencies.

I agree... too many articles here presume we already know the subject matter and know why we should care about it. It wouldn't take more than 2 sentences to explain what Plone is and why we should have any interest in the subject.

No.

1. Nobody paid for this program.
2. This program did not work as advertised (and apparently didn't do anything)
3. This was not removed for editorial reasons.

And I have no objections over Apple removing programs either, provided they're doing it for security reasons, not because they don't agree with the content. (For example, people who installed PDANet still have it, even though it's no longer in the app store. If Apple started nuking that from handsets, I'd have a problem.)

Then someone didn't read his TOS when he accepted the terms to the app market. :-)

Who cares, that's after the fact. They should NOT have the ability, the "agreement" should be changed right now, and the next version of Android should have this censor ability removed.

I CARE. I want that ability there. If an app has the potential to harm me or my family financially or damage my phone, I want it gone.

If Google only warned people, How many people would not get the warning until it's too late? How many would even do anything about it. Heck, one person I know didn't even realize what the notification bar WAS, and he had 20 app updates to install after I showed him.

I wouldn't mind seeing a configurable option, but I like that Google (and Apple, for that matter) can catch malicious programs before they harm a bunch of people.

Remember, using your phone costs money. There are at least 3 ways I could directly cost you thousands of dollars with an application: I can make phone calls. I can use tons of data. I can send out text messages. If I had to choose between the current system and no protection at all, I'll take the current system.

So do this:

back up all the apps you install (very easy with Appmonster or something similar.)

When Google removes something, just re-install it from your backup.

And oh yeah, make sure you're willing to pay the bill or face the legal consequences when it does something nasty like run up a huge phone bill.

Here's unconscionable for you: you don't reach into my phone and delete stuff. Period.

When some app comes along that sends out a million texts and runs up a $10,000 phone bill, I'm sure you'll be back in here, screaming about that.

You can't have it both ways, cowboy.