At least for the songs, you should be pay iTunes (again) to get the songs with DRM removed. I think it's like $.49/song which, if you have a ton of songs, is probably well over $30 but it would mean that you would have a Linux player for that content today.

The producers and writers NEVER promised rational explanations for everything that happened on the island. In fact, they explicitly said there were a lot of things that definitely didn't have them. I don't know where you got your information to the contrary but, if while watching the show you really thought there was going to be a 'rational' explanation for a sentient cloud of black smoke that travels the island offing people...well, i'm flabbergasted.

All your points relate to a completely different issue than what this article is actually about (don't worry, it looks like 99% of the 'techies' posting to this article fail to understand what Adobe actually announced related to Flash and the iPhone).

In short: THIS IS NOT ABOUT FLASH IN THE BROWSER ON THE IPOD/IPHONE/IPAD.

Let me repeat: THIS IS NOT ABOUT FLASH IN THE BROWSER ON THE IPOD/IPHONE/IPAD.

Adobe released a feature that allows you to export an app created in Flash CS5 (not the Flash Player client) as a native iPhone app. This meant you could export an iPhone app that includes ZERO bits of Flash that could then be submitted to Apple's AppStore and appears like every other app.

What Apple said in the their license is, essentially, you must not use 3rd party tools to create native iPhone Apps. XCode and Objective-C are your options.

What Adobe said is that they will no longer work on the above feature for the Apple devices. But will work on it for other devices.

So if you want to create an app that targets the web, the desktop, Android, iPhone, etc. You will be able to target all these platforms with a single code base -- except the iPhone...that you will have to write separately in Objective-C as a completely different code base. Because of Apple's whims.

Note that, according to the license, this also applies to all other non-Apple tools that can be used to cross-compile to a native iPhone app.

please, please, please get your facts straight on what these scientists did with their data when they 'threw out raw data'

they threw out siberian tree-ring data for certain years (i believe it was 1960 to present) that they were using to infer local temperatures and, instead, used the actual local air temperatures. this turned a graph that showed temperatures over a period of time longer than thermometers have existed in from one relying on only tree-ring data, to one relying solely on tree-ring temperature data to one using mostly tree-ring data with some tree-ring data replaced by more accurate actual temperature readings.

yes, the tree-ring data in this location diverges unexpectedly from the actual temps recorded. that is a problem to explain. but it has nothing to do with the fact that the temperatures really did continue to increase.

How is Palm not trying to force Apple into making iTunes SO restrictive about syncing that Palm can sue Apple for anti-competitive behavior, eventually forcing iTunes to be actively open.

I say that Palm is doing the exact opposite of trying to avoid a lawsuit, but their intention is to be on the 'right' end of it. It's brilliant if it works.

But the original article is asking mostly about using this to read academic papers.

If that's the case, doesn't the small size of the Palm (or other handheld device) cause problems? With academic papers often containing graphs, tables, images, etc. won't these potentially have a difficult time being shown on the handheld screen in enough detail along with the explanatory text to be as easily readable?

Aren't you missing the fact that if you were to email a digital copy to a friend you end up with 2 (or more) copies while in 'real life' if you send them an actual book, you end up not having the book still yourself? You really should have tried a car analogy, that surely would have been better.

I know it's nice wanting everything to be free or to be able to do whatever you want with something you purchase. But buying different things can and do have different strings attached. If you don't like the strings, don't buy and, eventually, the strings will have to go away. Buy or steal instead and you're justifying those strings.

marco polo?

Did I redefine "the original problem"? I was under the impression that the root cause of this guy wanting to know where his child was, was that they got on the wrong bus. He's asking for a solution to know where his kid is if it happens again (and under other circumstances too). However, this doesn't help in solving the 'recurring' problem of kids getting on the wrong bus.

> I don't think you are a coder or at least not a very good one.

Fair enough, though I have no idea what you base that on.

However, I am either misunderstanding what you're saying or you're completely contradictory.

You argument appears to say:

1. Javascript and regexp are general purpose and anything you can do with them should not be patentable even if you're the first to do so.
2. If IBM created their own modified javascript and modified regexp, then they should be able to get a patent for that because they're 'new'.

There's a couple things about that that bother me, particularly the logical inconsistency of the 2 rules: Suppose IBM created their modified javascript and modified regexp using regular javascript and regexp? Well, it satisfies #2, and fails #1, so can they patent it or not?

Only one of the two solves the original problem; the technology-based tracking system is useless in ensuring the kid gets on the right bus, while the index card system should generally work.

software patents being evil is a general argument against this that i can buy.

but the argument that "Every day, all over the world, there are coders solving software problems JUST LIKE THIS ONE"? no. i can't buy that. i've never seen this done before and, as far as i can tell, no one posting can show that something JUST LIKE THIS ONE has already been done.

and since this would clearly be useful (nearly every html form on the web could benefit from real-time validation not to mention proper error identification) if it was actually "beyond trivial" why hasn't it been done. according to you there's little cost involved and, i'd argue, sizeable benefit to this feature.

and if everyone could realize that IBM's claims indicate that this is a *general* solution and is not specific to ridiculously simple regexps like SSNs or phone numbers then maybe it'll be easier to see that it is absolutely not as trivial as everybody here wants to claim.