So a FREE app (#1) for a small subset of people will soon be replaced by another FREE app (#2) for a small subset of people and the author thinks that #2 will have less features than #`1 but of course it will only affect a small subset of people.

Well tea in China may get expensive next year too.

Don't be beholden to one company, be it Apple, ChinaTeaCo, or anyone. Then you don't have to whine when one app you didn't pay a dollar for FREE app (#1 or #2) you don't feel like wadding up tissues and crying. Man up. Or woman up. Either way quit whining.

Free market. Haven't heard about it? That's where you can go buy things not made by Apple. Then you're not beholden to their stupid movements, bowel or market.

E

If you read the original article... the daily dot says "Collins and Barry were acquitted in 2005, the AP added."
If you read the AP article the headline "Former Prisons Chief, Viapro Exec Acquitted" gives you a clue that
the content includes "A federal judge acquitted a former Texas prisons chief and a Canadian businessman..."

Acquitted is LIKE convicted only just the exact opposite.

E

This has been debated before but here's the recap.

An administrative judge ruled in 2013 that the FAA does not have the authority (in other words it has not been given this authority by Congress) to regulate model aircraft including balsa-wood planes, paper-airplanes, radio-controlled (r/c) planes, helicopters, quadcopters, hexacopters, etc. This is established fact. The FAA elected NOT to appeal this.

The FAA has attempted to levy _one_ fine against someone flying a 'drone' (see above for disambiguation with quadcopters, hexacopters, etc. and realize it's the same thing) and THAT was the time the administrative law judge shot them down and hard.

The FAA can write whatever they like in the Federal Register.
Step 1: Get Congress to give them the authority. Until then the FAA lacks jurisdiction*.
Step 2: Get Congress to fund enforcement actions under this authority. Until then the FAA won't [be allowed to] enforce anything.
Step 3: Profit.

Ehud
commercial helicopter pilot
Tucson AZ US

* A previous poster said that "if you can put a piece of paper between it and the ground the FAA has jurisdiction." This is not true. The FAA's jurisdiction comes not from simplistic experiments with tree bark pulp and thin slots, but from the Code of Federal Regulations. It's all in there. Too boring to quote tho.

The slashdot headline says "..Back in Profit." Unfortunately not so.

The original article is informative. Under Chen's leadership Blackberry has
increased their profitability so they are no longer losing so much money.

They are, however, NOT PROFITABLE. Their loss prior to some accounting
tricks (that will make the number worse) is $0.11/shr. That means an
investor holding 1000 shares just lost $110 (if he/she sold them).

While profitability as a measure of how well a company performs is good,
and acknowledging that LOSING MILLIONS is a lot better than LOSING
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS (see e.g. Radio Shack)... Blackberry has a
long long way to go.

The article ends with the two avenues Blackberry is pursuing: hardware and
software (how inventive, right?)
- Hardware: they're going to try and create Internet enabled gadgets. As
Blackberry's core hardware competence has always been its bundled
business services this is a big departure. They fight uphill against
Samsung watches, Apple gizmos, Google's Nest, etc.
- Sofware: They bought the right to allow their product to access the
Amazon Play Store (android apps from Amazon only). The win here
is they prove their product REALLY CAN run android apps. The lose
is that instead of opening it up to the Google Play store (most
android apps) they've allowed a limited (by Amazon) subset of apps,
and most designed to siphon extra $$$ and hand them off to Amazon.
This is something we can expect to see Amazon touting as a win in
it's 10Q.

I wish them well. I was surprised by the headline. BlackBerry is
doing well to reduce loss, and less loss is higher profitability, but
they're still chewing threw their cash and unless they stem and
correct that they will be gone.

E

The slashdot headline says "..Back in Profit." Unfortunately not so.

The original article is informative. Under Chen's leadership Blackberry has
increased their profitability so they are no longer losing so much money.

They are, however, NOT PROFITABLE. Their loss prior to some accounting
tricks (that will make the number worse) is $0.11/shr. That means an
investor holding 1000 shares just lost $110 (if he/she sold them).

While profitability as a measure of how well a company performs is good,
and acknowledging that LOSING MILLIONS is a lot better than LOSING
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS (see e.g. Radio Shack)... Blackberry has a
long long way to go.

The article ends with the two avenues Blackberry is pursuing: hardware and
software (how inventive, right?)
- Hardware: they're going to try and create Internet enabled gadgets. As
Blackberry's core hardware competence has always been its bundled
business services this is a big departure. They fight uphill against
Samsung watches, Apple gizmos, Google's Nest, etc.
- Sofware: They bought the right to allow their product to access the
Amazon Play Store (android apps from Amazon only). The win here
is they prove their product REALLY CAN run android apps. The lose
is that instead of opening it up to the Google Play store (most
android apps) they've allowed a limited (by Amazon) subset of apps,
and most designed to siphon extra $$$ and hand them off to Amazon.
This is something we can expect to see Amazon touting as a win in
it's 10Q.

I wish them well. I was surprised by the headline. BlackBerry is
doing well to reduce loss, and less loss is higher profitability, but
they're still chewing threw their cash and unless they stem and
correct that they will be gone.

E

> not running continuously.

No, I mentioned the AC only runs 20 hours out of the day. That's how it is in Arizona.
Daytime high of 110F. Nighttime low of 78F. We like the bedroom around 72F, so
yes, it runs except when nobody's home but then it has a bit of catchup to do.

The fridge does not run continously, but it faces the same battle. All the heat it puts
out causes the AC to run more. So there's no magic way for the fridge not to run.

My sample size is indeed one and is of no statistical significance. I urged everyone
to get a power meter and join in. Did you?

E

Number one consumer of electric power: Air conditioning unit. THOUSANDS OF WATTS
Number two consumer of electric power: Refrigerator. HUNDREDS OF WATTS

Cable boxes don't come in number two and they don't consume 35 watts.

So if you're keeping track not only is not "number 2" (a dubious distinction) but its use of electric power is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE below what's chewing up power. In fact, here in Arizona our A/C runs about 20 hours a day. That uses more power per day than the cable box uses in a year. I could ditch cable altogether (I have Comcast so it's a constant thought) and my power bill won't change by 1%.

How do I know? I use a http://www.amazon.com/P3-Inter... kill-a-watt. The cable box draws less than 1 amp (12W) and that's while it's on and it's the big Motorola unit just like the picture in the original article.

Do you like facts and statistics and data upon which to base conclusions? You should get one of these kill-a-watts. They're awesome and they're quickto end stupid discussions that say you should unplug your cable box.

Off to unplug my wifi router. I hear it draws 0.5A.

E

Everything Tim Cook says in his official capacity reflects what Apple thinks.
That means that if it later comes out HE MADE THE WHOLE THING UP
BASED ENTIRELY ON HIS OPINION and that there are no statistics to
back it up, if the stock goes down, shareholders will sue.

How could he have statistics? Simple. Apple is in a unique position to
have every iPhone purchaser fill out a survey. But... they don't. So
there is no such data. That means any "conclusion" is purely anecdotal
(as in "My buddy said so and my other buddy agreed, yeah Android was
a mistake.") That's not statistically significant, and it's irresponsible for
a CEO of a public company to say so.

Still, whatever helps him sleep at night.

E

It's a clever idea (like Comcast wanting Netflix to pay them for what Comcast's own customers pay them already).

Right now you have 15,000 paying customers. They are almost "captive" in the sense that they get Internet service without having to put any effort into it, so they will continue to be customers so long as you treat them fairly.

Your customers pay you to give them access to the whole Internet. If you remove parts of the net until someone else double-pays you for that same service, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of a Judge certifying a class-action suit against you for lots of fun things like breach of contract, tortious interference, and possibly material misrepresentation (not fraud - fraud isn't covered by E&I insurance).

Your safe bet if you wanted to do something this stupid is to give your 15,000 customers FREE Internet with the caveat that some sites may not be reachable unless the other side pays for it. This would be legal, but it won't be financially profitable.

So you can either retain a sustainable model where you're not getting sued, not extorting third parties, and making money, OR you can extort third parties and likely get sued OR you can move to a financially non-sustainable model.

As an IT director I guess your job is to figure out how to implement what the Directors wants. As anyone with half a brain I would recommend they make the selection from the choices above before spending a minute researching firewalls and private-dickhead-networks.

E

I'm sure Mr. Zuckerberg is aboard the first American Airlines flight from San Francisco to Tehran.
Oh wait, no Southwest flight goes to Tehran.

Surely he's booked on United Airlines. No, wait, they don't fly to Tehran either.

Looks like NONE of the US carriers go there. Is it because they don't like money? That can't be
right. Is it because they are shareholder driven and their shareholders are all either dirty jews
or clean jews or some combination of clean and dirty jews? That seems unlikely.

OH WAIT, I GOT IT!

IRAN IS A TERRORIST NATION, A SPONSOR OF TERRORIST GROUPS, CALLS THE US
THE GREAT SATAN AND WANTS TO DESTROY US AND ISRAEL TOO AND IS A HOTBED
OF RELIGIOUS CRAP THAT MAKES THE BIBLE BELT AND WASHINGTON DC LOOK LIKE
SECULAR NOOBS.

I guess they won't have Zuckerberg to demonize if he doesn't go there.

Perhaps they'll burn his effigy along with President Obama, the US Flag, and a fake
nuclear wessel.

Ehud
Tucson AZ US

Someone please forward the memo to microsoft. They can stop referencing BING as if it's a thing.
It's a DEAD thing.

[click here to have Bing translate this thing lol]

I read your list of achievements. Very nice.

In the next few projects focus on
- planning the programming before you do it, so you can explain your design decisions
and the inevitable tradeoffs to prevent people who come after you from trying to "fix"
what isn't broken.
- documenting what you did do so anyone can support your code

If you are fond of saying any of these:
- "Anyone who can read code can see what it does"
- "the obvious doesn't need documenting"
- "there were no tradeoffs"
- one day I will rewrite this to be better ...this would help you understand why you're unemployable.

University education is a good first step to something something complete.
Being a freshman is not a bonus nor a hindrance. Experience with github,
software RCS etc are all good. The keys are making choices before coding,
knowing and being able to explain those choices, and documenting them for
others to take the burdens of support off your inventive shoulders.

E

These concepts were part of the commercial Internet circa the early 1990s
and were part of the reason CIX was so successful. Then PAIX then others.

In time, Internet exchanges were themselves bogged down and companies
did private peering. Those who connected to like-quantity produders of
content did so for free (settlement-free peering). Those who were unequal
paid for transiting the network (paid transit).

That hasn't changed in 32 years. All that's changed is the up and down of
who provides more traffic where. The dominant player in each interconnection
point ALWAYS demanded transit, and often did so with the "wherever our
two networks meet" even if elsewhere it was not the dominant player.

Comcast could be made to behave, but Netflix blinked and paid them money.
Now others will as well.

This CAN BE FIXED BY REGULATION but not the kind people are thinking
of. No, not net neutrality. Rather the elimination of the cable-company
monopolies on entire swaths of subscribers. Eliminate the government-granted
access to rights-of-way, towers, utility poles, and infrastructure. Let them not
have a "sole franchise" but rather be one of many competing in the market.

Remove Comcast and their ilk from their high post as the monopolistic "owner"
of all these households by fiat, and having to compete to keep them, and instead
of throttling their peerings to make Netflix users (THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS)
suffer... they'll get peering with netflix.

More government regulation doesn't solve a market-driven problem. Removing the
government regulation harming free competition is the key.

E

To "invest" is to put money where value is.

Bitcoin is a concept. It has no value. People can trade, arbitrage, wield, barter, or exchange for it.
It still has no value.

Best fortune to all those making money with Bitcoin. For every one of you someone has lost
an almost equal amount. (originally mined bitcoins loss value 0 but it grows exponentially).

And as for the holdback bitcoins created and untouched -- that's why bitcoin will NEVER be a currency.
"Oh we invented this so we kept some for ourselves." Yeah, do that. And doom the coin.

E