Does the iPhone's data plan not come with unlimited internet access? If so, MMS seems like just another redundant protocol. Most phones that can send/receive MMS probably support email as well. Of course, there may be a difference in cost to the recipient between receiving an MMS versus an equivalent e-mail.

For all the resources spent on overlapping cellphone, radio, and terrestrial TV infrastructure, I think we probably could have just erected a nationwide wifi network that would be both cheaper to operate and more flexible—not to mention more open. I know a lot of cellphone providers have deals with one another to share their networks with each others' customers, but there's still a lot of overlap between coverage areas as well as gaps in each network.

Any internet-capable device would be able to make use of an open wireless network, so we wouldn't have to put up with handsets that have been locked and intentionally crippled by carriers or wait over 4 decades to rediscover email. I mean, it just seems like there's a lot of unnecessary reinventing of the wheel just to bring features/applications that have long existed on the internet to the proprietary cellphone networks. Not only that, but the telecos are able to charge extortionate fees for services that are essentially free outside of these proprietary networks.

Having to get carrier approval (i.e. make deals with each individual carrier) to develop a device that uses their network also suppresses innovation IMO. In addition to being so specialized towards a single application (imagine if the internet and the TCP/IP & UDP protocols were only designed for VoIP traffic), the proprietary nature of cellular networks has also largely limited development of new applications for cellular networks to the carriers themselves. Even in economic terms, I think there's a lot of technological potential being wasted here. How much of the modern internet (or the history of computing itself) has been shaped by independent hackers, hobbyists, students, etc.? I don't think the transformation the WWW/internet underwent in the past 2 decades could have occurred on a closed/proprietary network.

Though, I will concede that there may be a few potential upsides to having our current communications infrastructure. In some cases, it may be beneficial to have separate network infrastructures for different applications. For instance, if there is a DDoS on your ISP, your phone lines/cellphone won't go down. And in some cases specialized applications just can't be perfectly duplicated on a generalized network—e.g. emergency operators still have difficulty tracking the location of some VoIP callers. But these issues are outweighed by the benefits of having a more robust, versatile and open all-purpose wi-fi network.

That has nothing to do with philanthropy. If you want to use a anonymity proxy, you're free to do so. And that would give you better protection than Scroogle, which only hides your IP from Google. If you're not bothered by other web servers logging your IP, then why would you be concerned with Google? Of all the online megacorporations out there to fear having your privacy invaded by, you're worried about Google?

If you don't want to be tracked by your credit card purchases, then pay for your purchases with cash. It would be unreasonable (and unwise) to ask that banks and credit firms store no digital records of your financial activities. Likewise, in age of information and with the ubiquity of the world wide web, you can't expect there to be no trace of your online activities anywhere (unless you live completely off the grid). You can't go frolicking through the snow and then get mad at the snow for preserving your footprints. Now, you can take care to conceal your tracks, or even create misleading tracks to fool anyone who might be following you. But the only way to ensure there's no trace of your presence is to not tread on the snowy ground.

So, instead of expecting search providers to keep no server logs, store no cookies, and store no session data (things that all modern websites do), perhaps it'd make more sense to focus on other areas of privacy protection that actually matter. For instance:

• Use secure connections when sending & receiving sensitive and/or confidential data.
• Take care to keep your computer free of spyware, trojans, keyloggers, and other types of malware, and just being security conscious in general.
• When you see a luxury car sitting in the lobby of a movie theater with a kiosk next to it asking you to fill out your personal info to be entered into the sweepstakes, DO NOT ENTER INTO THE SWEEPSTAKES. This also applies to online freebies, like free magazine subscriptions, iPods, thumbdrives, etc., that require you to submit your personal info. That's how you end up on the "prospects" lists used by spammers and telemarketers.
• Make sure your ISP, cellphone provider and any other businesses you may have a contract with, are respecting your privacy and not selling your info to 3rd parties as many of them do.
• Lastly, choose your online services (e.g. e-mail, personal blog, search engine, photo sharing service, etc.) carefully. Read the privacy policy of websites you give your personal info to. Don't sign up for an account at or give your email address to shady websites that don't have a reasonable privacy policy available for reading.

IMO, it's much more important to choose a search provider you can trust than to try to obtain perfect anonymity (which is simply unrealistic). The reason people like Google is because they provide the best search results as well as many innovative/useful auxiliary services. Now, if they couldn't collect search data, then they wouldn't be able to analyze them to identify search trends, usage patterns, etc. that have helped them to optimize their search algorithm over the years. Likewise, it's only by collecting this type of anonymized search data that they're able to offer many of their useful derivative services or user-friendly features incorporated into Google search or Gmail.

Google has shown that they can be trusted with user data (at least with regards to Google Search. Orkut and YouTube may be a different matter.) by being the only major search provider to outright refuse to hand over search records to the DoJ. They have also expended considerable resources lobbying for intellectual property reform, green technology, net neutrality, open wireless networks, IT security, and online privacy, not to mention also being a prominent backer of open source software. They have a track record of looking out for the interests of their users. So I am perfectly comfortable with letting Google store my search data (a feature which can be turned on and off at will) in order to personalize my search results, making them more relevant and useful.

You can buy pure lithium from chemical supply shops. Most people buy batteries to use as batteries. And you can experiment with potentially dangerous compounds and still be safe about it. The danger isn't the fun part. If danger is what you're after then go play Russian Roulette or go streaking across a busy freeway. Having your electronics ruined by a defective battery is neither fun nor entertaining. And the normal risk of it happening is too low to be exciting even if you are looking for danger.

Also, elemental mercury ingested (or injected intravenously) is normally not that dangerous except in cases of chronic exposure, as only 0.01% is actually absorbed by your gastrointestinal tract. It's inhalation of mercury vapors that is dangerous as even small quantities inhaled can cause acute toxicity. But even without experiencing acute mercury poisoning, its cumulative nature can still cause subtle negative health effects (such as higher chances of having children with birth defects in the case of women).

Sorry, I wrote that pretty early in the morning when I was still kinda grumpy, so I apologize if my post came off as a personal attack. I just get short with people sometimes when I see what seems to be an obvious flaw in logic. But I realize that what seems obvious to me isn't necessarily obvious to others, and vice versa.

However, I still maintain the position that you shouldn't dismiss an entire category of products based on your own personal preferences. It comes off as very self-centered.

It's hard to fathom that there may be a product out there that doesn't fit your personal preferences?

I have no use for a smartphone personally. But I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to say that there's no place for such devices. I mean, it's neither a cellphone nor a laptop, but that has no bearing on the utility of such a device. Every new category of products exists to cater to a previously unfilled niche. It was the same with netbooks. And just as now, there were shortsighted/close-minded individuals who dismissed the device for not fitting into one extreme or another (palm pilot/organizer and laptop).

I mean, what is so difficult to grasp about the reasoning that: since there are people who have uses for screens sizes 4" and less as well as those that measure over 9", there might also be a market for screens in between those ranges? If there are people who enjoy reading books on a tiny cellphone screen, then why not a device with a larger screen that is still portable? Frankly, 7" diagonal is about the size of a small netbook. That can easily fit into a purse or any of the pouches or pockets on a standard backpack. Heck, that's smaller than a small paperback novel that can easily fit in the side pockets of most of my pants.

Your skewed sense of proportions aside, the functionality of a tablet/ebook is geared towards different applications from a netbook or laptop. Sure, you can read ebooks on a similar-sized netbook, but an ebook reader would benefit far more from dual screens than a keyboard. Likewise, there are people who require tablet functionality and not the extra features that come with a netbook. Some people might prefer taking hand-written notes or being able to highlight passages in books they're reading. A laptop that weighs much more, is far less portable, has a shorter battery life, costs more, and is inferior for what you need it for just doesn't make sense.

Step outside of that solipsistic head space once in a while.

Germany considers comic books medieval junk? American comic books during the CCA era, maybe. But there are a lot of excellent comics out there. Why does the pairing of image with words necessarily make a medium "junk" or for the illiterate? Are all films junk as well because they don't even have printed words? That just seems like a really arbitrary categorical accusation (one that reeks of pretentiousness). Does enjoying a good book once in a while mean you don't have an eye for art? Or is there something about visual arts that offends you? Would you rather Leonardo da Vinci have simply described the Mona Lisa in words so that you could use your well-developed "fantasy" to visualize it for yourself?

I've never been a big comic book reader, but I can still appreciate the quality of the writing and artwork of many works in that genre (for instance, Akira and various comics by Jean Giraud/Moebius and Masamune Shirow). Comics/graphic novels are such a rich and diverse medium that almost anyone can find something that appeals to them in this expressive art form. Perhaps Germany is just culturally behind the U.S. in regards to the acceptance/appreciation of alternative media, because the attitude you express is very typical of how the average American viewed comics/mangas/animes just a few decades ago. There's just no reason why creative storytelling should be restricted to book form, or why graphic art and literature have to be kept separate from one another.

He was correct no matter how you look at it. The word "literally" is a contranym. So even if "rape" were being used to mean forced sexual intercourse, that sentence was still semantically sound. Though I still wish we had a dedicated adverb to mean the opposite of "figuratively."

Also, doesn't "pilfer" mean to steal in small quantities? Maybe that's what the GP was suggesting should be replaced by "pillage?"

I think it's mostly evolutionary programming. Human infants and babies of many other species have evolved physical characteristics that elicit an empathic response from adults of their species. Human infants are particularly helpless. Under the harsh conditions that early humans had to survive in, those infants that could not elicit the sympathy of the adult members of the tribe would simply be left to fend for themselves. I mean, why would you risk your life for this smelly, noisy, pathetic little "thing" when you've barely got enough resources to keep yourself alive, and are being hunted by sabertooth tigers?

Additionally, the individuals who survive into adulthood but do not care for their young won't get to pass their genes on either. The fact that humans typically live in large family groups, or tribes that contain many related individuals, means that there's also an incentive for adults to care for young who are not their direct offspring.

We're psychologically wired to emotionally bond to, and care for, infants. It's no coincidence that most invertebrate babies share certain "cute" characteristics—such as cute body proportions (large eyes, large heads, short limbs, etc.), make cute high pitch noises, etc. There has also been much recorded about how infants can trigger biochemical changes in nearby adults just by their presence or certain preprogrammed behavior.

Those look like different wood grain patterns. The thumbnail layout is also different. Or does Delicious Monster think they own a patent on wood grain backgrounds and virtual bookshelf interfaces?

I'm all for rewarding people for original innovations and ingenuity, but a "wooden bookshelf" interface metaphor for a virtual catalog application seems pretty obvious. Apple had a stronger case going after people who imitated OS X's aqua theme with gel buttons and shiny/transparent UIs.

If I'm wrong, and they did steal the wood grain pattern image directly from Delicious Monster, then that is pretty shady—particularly for a commercial company. But I don't think you can claim that you suffered "losses" just because someone else also used an incredibly obvious idea that you came upon first (if they were even the first at all). That's like Amazon claiming that they suffered losses because someone else also implemented one-click checkout on their online store, or that Creative suffered losses because subsequent MP3 players also used hierarchical menus.

I guess the way it's phrased might be a little confusing to some people. But the article is correct in saying that she spent $8000; it was just Medicare's money she was spending. I don't have Medicare so I don't know how exactly it works. They may or may not cover the entire cost. So she may have had to pay for some of it out of her own pocket.

And it does matter even if the two devices work exactly the same. Whether the insurance is private or public, it's a limited resource that's being shared by everyone covered by the insurer. If she spends $8000 on this computer, then that's $8000 that others cannot use. So it always makes sense for the insurer to use the limited shared funds in the most efficient manner possible. Medicare is a government-funded insurance, so even if they have enough funds to cover everyone's needs (which they don't), it is still irresponsible for them to waste federal money (i.e. tax dollars) on overpriced products. Private insurers turn a profit by making sure their payouts add up to less than what they receive in payments. This usually means restricting the number/types of claims that they approve. The more wasteful they are with they reimbursements, the more claims they have to turn down to maintain the same profit margin.

You're not understanding the article. As the parent already stated, they're talking about medical insurance, not property insurance.

And why does she need the insurance to pay for it? Because that's they're job. That's why she's paying for a medical plan. If the devices were free, then you wouldn't need your insurance company to pay for it.

That's very possible. I mean, the more accurate tests are, the more rigorous the safety requirements become. But I think trying to strike a balance between caution and practicality is something we've always had to contend with. The other issue is that space & flight technology today is an order of magnitude more complex than what we went to the moon with in the late 60s. But, at the same time, we should be able to keep up with this growing complexity through technologies like Computer-Aided Design, advanced automation, and better production techniques—things which enabled/produced this complexity in the first place.

I think the biggest factor is still a lack of political will, which is perhaps the fault of our national culture. Would the American people get behind a government effort to get back to the moon at any cost, even though we're not competing with the Russians anymore? There was a huge boost in funding into the sciences and science education in the 1960s. That's not something that we have now, and it doesn't seem to be on the agenda of our national policy makers. If anything, we've taken a few steps back towards the Scopes Monkey Trial days.

It's interesting that you mention military aircraft design, since that seems to be an area of technological development that has really surged forward in the past decade. Look at all the advances in UAV and missile technology, not to mention the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. This hasn't been slowed down by increasingly precise/thorough aircraft testing. That's because the government has poured money into defense, largely with the blessing up the public. Heck, we've created a whole new federal agency, the Homeland Security Agency, just to combat the threat of terrorism.

That's an interesting point. I actually wasn't aware of that second requirement. In that case I think even a president (or governor) has some basic right to privacy (e.g. a reporter can't install spy cameras in the President's bathroom or bedroom just because he's a public figure), which justifies his not answering honestly about questions prying into his personal life—and that will go into public records.

I mean, he did a stupid thing to lie, as that turned even many democrats against him. But the entire proceedings seemed like a witch hunt.

I think they ultimately did have legal grounds to impeach him. So the act of impeachment was not illegal. But they basically got him on a technicality.

It's like if you outed a gay public official during a time of homophobic public sentiments and bring him to trial for that. He knows that if he admits to being gay, his political career is over. And with all the media attention, attacks on his personal character, extra public scrutiny, etc., he lies under oath about being gay. So you find proof that he is gay and get him on perjury. Sure, you impeached him on legal grounds, but there were no grounds to place his sexual preference on trial in the first place, and he did nothing wrong to begin with.