The problem is that no one wants to spend an extra $500 - $1000 for a 3D tv while most tv manufactures are trying to cover all their losses over the last 4 years from the mistake of trying to push this silly technology.

Once the focus is back to standard TV's with increasingly better displays at a reasonable price then people will start buying again instead off holding onto their all ready "good enough" LED / LCD tv's.

I take it you have never had to deal with identity theft before?

If your credit card / account was used in a different country or obviously not possible to be you making the transactions then you are damn lucky. In most cases though you are dealing with identify theft in your general area like a city or state. In these situations you have to prove that you are Innocent which is damn near impossible. In fact the credit card companies try to make it as difficult as possible for you to prove your Innocent.

So during Christmas time and banks dealing with thousands (tens of thousands?) of extra malice credit card transactions on top of what they normally would at this time of year I can't imagine the banks trying to make it easier for their customers. It will be in fact the most difficult time of the year for the customers to deal with this.

I've stood behind many of the things Anonymous has done in the past but this just seems stupid.

The only thing this will do is cost charities millions in audits, time, etc and make many lose services they use to collect donations. You know what will happen if a charity receives illicit funds through paypal? Their bank account gets frozen and paypal will in most cases never allow them to use their service again.

If they want to be dicks they should use these attacks through online services that the music/movie industries run / make money from, or big evil online retails like walmart and bestbuy or make payments to other banks customers mortgages / dept.

Did a quick re-read and it turns out they are going to offer it for free to developers in hopes of forcing customers to click on a button to get charged for better network speeds.

Somehow if their network is too saturated this client api will speed up their network they are saying. Oh, no it wont, they will simply throttle other paying customers while charging you an additional fee for a service you are all ready paying for.

Oh and a great quote from the article :

  "And just because you request a high quality of service doesn't mean you're gonna get it."

So now software developers will have to pay a fee to get "good" data speeds?

And to top that off now developers will need to design 2 versions of their application for every type of version phone / OS and everyone else. Way to go guys.

It could be that the hardware isn't worse for androids, its that it is more difficult to replace or file a claim with Apple then it is with android phones.

I had a blackberry for several years and have had an android phone for 2 and have never had any problem.

I do on the other hand know several people who have had several iphones die and were un-replaceable because of whatever excuse Apple could come up with.

That and people are far more likely to "upgrade" their iphones the moment a new version comes out instead of using their existing phone until it stops functioning.

"Its syntax is very forgiving, and there are lots of ways to do most things"

Am I the only person who sees this as one of the biggest problems with PERL? Don't get me wrong, I love choice and having options. But when you're learning a language you do not want 10 different styles of writing a function, statement, loop, whatever. Because when you are working with 10+ people you now have 1 language, 10 different ways to write in (and now 10 different ways you need to read).

When I first started learning PERL and reading books, websites and downloading examples all the different styles of writing in PERL was the biggest problem. You can't just simply learn how to do an IF statement, you have to learn the 20+ different ways you COULD write an IF statement, since every example you will find online will be totally different.

This guy is spot on with pretty much everything he discussed. I have never understood why Google does the things it does. They create some fantastic products, but they their products never overlap; meaning you do not get access to many other applications within other applications.

Look at reCaptcha. Quite easily one of the best, if not the best captcha system around. Google bought it like 2 years ago; and yet they do not use it within any of their sites. They use their horrible, out-dated and unreadable captcha system.

Also look at dodgeball. It was a fantastic service that google killed off like 3 years ago. And now facebook has this exact feature that is insanely popular.

Their user account system is just awful too. Yes at least you can link your webmaster, analyst, gmail, home page, etc together, but its just done so poorly that this is very little reason to have 1 single account. Its about as continent as having several accounts.

Google was onto something with gears and with gadgets but with gears gone and gadgets basically having zero development done in 5+ years they have pretty much killed off any really cool way to share, use or access cool or useful tools.

Hopefully this changes because I would hate to see facebook continue to get bigger.

The concept of banning "hacking tools" is just silly. What would these people consider a hacking tool? SSH terminals since they allow people to connect to compromised systems or to connect to machines with "hacker tools"? Or what about IRC servers since many bot networks have used them or offer the ability to let people talk about hacking?

Even some of the biggest "hacker tools" are used for real network and server analysis like winshark and the like.

This is simply the wrong approach to fix a problem. This is in fact the worst way to approach the problem. The real solution is to charge software companies for making insecure software. Don't fine the hackers for finding the exploits, fine the developers for not finding them. The software developers are the ones making money off the software, if they cause people to lose data or have their systems compromised they should be the ones that should be held responsible, not the person who found it.

Instead of trying to remove the ability to make "hacker tools" why not remove the ability or need of these tools by making more secure software. I guess that would be too easy though.

I'm sorry, but are we supposed to be impressed by the 130 million on ENERGY? This is almost 1/10th the cost of a stealth bomber.

Energy is one of our biggest problems in this country and is one of the scariest things we have to look forward to in the future. 130 million will not solve any problems or come up with any new solutions and will barely line the pockets of which ever friends of friends were given government contacts that will receive this money. We need to start coming up with massive amounts of money to not only put into R & D but as basically bribery to the current oil industries (cars/aircrafts) to really pull out heads our of our asses and move on from our current primitive situation.

If our country really wanted to try solving the worlds energy problem we would be spending 130 BILLION. That is a number that will solve problems.

Why are people saying this is a privacy issue? It's not. It uses publicly available information that the person freely posts online for the general public to read. Its like saying articles posted in the New York Times is private information of the authors who write for it. This program dosen't even do anything cool like make HTTP requests from state / city govermently run publicly available data.

There are all ready existing applications out there that have all the features this software has and much much more.

Really have people in the open source community not realized this yet? App stores like Apple are not setup to distribute software or sharing code or ideas. it's about making money. Period! If apple has to choose between a sub par app that will sell for $5.00 over a similar app that is open source and free they will accept the lesser product because they can make money. It has happened in the past so don't expect it to change.

Besides with these apps stores are a dead end for open source products. People can download and use the product and it ends there. They can't download the source, make changes, distribute, etc. So these stores really limit open source software since the changes of people getting involved with them is almost non existent.

Everything about this phone was great, and it shouldn't have died in the tree like it did. I was really excited to get one and even had a "free upgrade" through tmobile.

The reason it died is not because people didn't want to buy it online. Did you see how they were selling it online? It was just too damn confusing and this is coming from someone who has been developing confusing sites for 13 years. I couldn't understand if I was going to be buying the phone or signing up for new service. I couldn't tell exactly how much I was going to spend. I also couldn't tell if I would keep my old service. Finally after a few days I spoke with Tmobile, and it was going to cost me roughly $400 with my "free upgrade" plus my monthly bill would increase over $40.00 a month because of th service you had to get.

So no it wasn't any of their silly excuees as to why it didn't sell. Bad and confusing site design, price and forced "upgrades" were the reason. This and the fact that there were several other phones almost as good that were free (no upgrade, no out of pocket) compared to spending over 1200 freaking dollars over a 2 year period extra just to have a new fancy phone.

So cops don't have to follow the laws or enforce laws on other cops because other cops might get mad at you and not do their jobs?

Ok, I see your point. Cops should be allowed to break any law they want (or their family members, hell their friends too).

From what I know from firends who have worked with state/federal agencies most work done out of the agency requires them to accept bids for work. Meaning a number of companies or people bid on the projects to get this work. Its done this way so there can (nor should there be) any endorcement.

When projects come up conact known open source groups, companies etc that there are bids for the available work. Yes you wont be contributing directly to the projects, but you could get the developers making cash with allows them to offer more to the projects they are working on.