Haha I thought it was kind of funny.

It is news, because you are misunderstanding what the bug is.

The "sender" is not what is being spoofed here. What the bug is, is the "reply-to" field, if filled in, will be displayed as the sender.

So say 555-555-5555 sends a text, but fills in reply-to as 444-444-4444. On any sane phone, the phone would show the source, AND the reply to, and prob give you the option of who to actually reply to.

Instead the iPhone simply discards the source if it sees a reply-to and shows the reply-to field AS the source in your conversation.

It is not a problem with someone faking SMS headers to show a different source. Anyone with an account on an SMS gateway could make one of these messages in theory, without breaking the GSM standard. It is definitely an iPhone bug, not a GSM one.

He is not exactly using it right either. Begging the question usually makes a point, not asks a question.

It is basically showing the assumption of something as proof, either by changing the words in the conclusion or by assuming something to be true.

Here are some examples from the internet:

a: "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

b: Bill: "God must exist."
        Jill: "How do you know."
        Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
        Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
        Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

c: "Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality".

In none of these have you proven anything since you are relying on wordplay/assumptions rather than facts to make an argument.

Using it as a substitute for 'This raises the question' is silly IMO since raises the question works perfectly well without ruining common knowledge of the real meaning of the phrase.

I'm in northern canada, and every welder I know makes over 100k a year. They work in mills, plants, or on the oil patch. I'm sure locale has a lot to do with it.

Well quantum entanglement happens at a superluminal, but since it is random, it cannot transmit information superluminally so the speed of light still holds true!

Oh BTW I agree about oil, but was just comparing what nuclear could help. Since oil is very seldom used for power generation it didn't seem to further the discussion to include it. But yeah thinking about it, since it is all burned and cars COULD run on electricity with some advances in battery and charging technology, then yes, nuclear is even more useful.

The mining phase of oil is not nearly as energy intensive as coal/uranium though. They basically drill a few holes and it comes spilling out. They just have to pump it where it is needed which is where the main 'mining' type energy gets used.

Coal isn't quite just crushed and sorted. I mean boiling it down that may be close to the heart of it, but as a communications tech up north here, some of my big customers are coal mines. They usually have 1-2 30+ thousand square foot plants, filled about 50+ feet high with machinery, all running at the same time. I imagine that is a fairly power hungry process. It is not refined but as far as how much electricity it takes, I bet it is a large chunk of what uranium is. I'm talking out my ass a bit here since I've only seen the coal side, but it sure seemed power hungry.

Uranium is 'burned' in a way, but nothing is released in the atmosphere and I imagine it is a fairly carbon neutral process.

So you have:

Mining: Lots of emissions form the haul trucks, drilling equipment, heavy equipment, etc. Both uranium and coal do this.
Refining etc: Again not 100% on the emission DIFFERENCE but both have a significant amount of power needed, so quite a bit of emissions.
Cast/assemble...well just uranium there, not sure on how much emissions this produces into the atmosphere.
Burn..well only coal really burns, and only coal dumps it into the atmosphere.
Recycling, only uranium, but this involves breeder reactors etc and also does not dump it into the atmosphere.
Dispose, no atmospheric emissions there, they bury it. Take a bit of equipment again here to drill the holes, but nothing like the mining phase.

I still bet ya coal comes out with WAY more CO2 output than uranium. Unfortunately I don't have hard data but its a fairly educated guess.

Coal is also mined and refined, and oil is used so seldom for power you can almost say it is not used.

Coal for power has the downside of being mined, then refined, then burnt.

At least uranium just has the first two. They use the heat it produces to generate power with only 1 intermediate step, so generally speaking, it is the best for climate change between the two.

I don't actually think there is a ban. Just the feds making recommendations. Their site seems to talk about it and I don't think they are going to stop selling them any time soon.

It does make me wonder how things would have progressed with no iPhone in the beginning though. Like I was using a Treo 680 running Palm's OS. The only real alternative was Windows mobile. Both are HORRIBLE operating systems. I also tried Symbian phones, etc at the time, and had a couple different blackberry models.

I guess I can't point to one amazing thing they innovated, but the product they put together sure seemed to totally blow everyone else out of the water. RIMs CEO was even talking about how Apple was lying at their announce and there was no way it was possible for them to do what they claimed.

I'm current using a Galaxy S III, so am not a total Apple fanboy here, but I sure remember using an iPhone coming from palm/bberry and really feeling it was a breath of fresh air.

I do agree on shape patents etc, seems crazy to me to be able to sue for this. While I'm not sure how long if ever it would have taken for smartphones to focus on usability, nice industrial design, and power use without Apple, I certainly don't agree with the way they are handling the competition.

PS: As far as iPads go, I still dont see the function in a tablet, desktop or mobile operating systems notwithstanding. My MB Air is very comfortable on the couch, does everything an more an iPad does, and is easily as portable, so the value is lost on me.

While I don't agree with him, I would say his point is more akin to the fact that with enough people running reactors, it only takes 1 of any of them to cause a disaster such as this. Since the disaster is so large scale, it is not an acceptable risk.

I personally think that even with these disasters, nuclear is the more safe and smarter way to product power going forward, especially in the newer generation reactors that are much safer by design.

What is not clear from the summary, is that the iPhone 4 and below have bootrom level exploits. For the newer 3GS and all the 4's these are tethered type exploits. They are in the hardware and cannot be flashed to fix or changed in any normal firmware update.

What this means is every single version you can install on these phones will be jailbroken the minute the redsn0w maintainer checks compatibility and adds probably a line of code allowing this version.

Since iOS 303087475.1.1 will be jailbreakable instantly if Apple allows it on the iPhone 4, every version that comes out does not need a news story saying there is a tethered jailbreak for it.

No new exploits were used/exposed in this jailbreak either, so there is no downside to the dev team doing this. They will never expose a new exploit to jailbreak a beta version. This tethered jailbreak does not apply for the 4S or iPad 2/3. These devices have no discovered hardware exploits (that anyone has let on anyways). The jailbreaks have relied on flaws in the backup/restore process and some other stuff.

On the american version of the Galaxy S III and there is only the crappy sense roms out, nothing standard android like CM9/10, AOKP, whatever. Development seems slower than usual despite the fully unlocked bootloader etc. Maybe this will help!

Because knowing some android developers, they basically tell me the new API's and their fancy features mostly mean jack shit for them since they all just target 2.x for their apps since almost no one (relatively speaking) is running the new version. If you target 4.1 you may be restricting your app to 5-15% of the android users in the useful life the devices currently out. Due to this a lot of fancy features Android implements go unused, and app progression as a whole on Android stagnates feature-wise a bit more than it should. I personally use android (Galaxy S III) and do not hate it, but I do believe the fragmentation and slow speed of new adoption for new versions IS a problem google should be looking at. I don't think the OEMs are suddenly going to change their ways without a nudge.

Ya it is funny listening to Howard Stern, and hearing him talk about Lotus Notes. Didn't even know it still existed.