So when you drive your car, you should have to pay for every toll road in the country, not just the toll roads you use?

Here is the difference between Aero and Cable, and the reason the so called loop hole is valid. Cable collects all the broadcasts signals and retransmitts all those signals along to all subscribers. The fee is the right to collect and retransmit en masse.

There is also and issue of the broadcasters use of the public airwaves. In exchange for this use, it is assumed that the tax payers of this country have access to free programing. Aero is a service that allows us to access that free content. Cable is a service where you buy access to content. Aero is a service where you specify a program to watch, or to record, and that one program is transmitted to you and only you. Cable is a service where all the programs are transmitted to you to be selected in immediate real time, even switch between channels, or channel in channel.

Here is an example, and everyone can decide if this is illegal. Tivo allows a broad range of remote capabilities. Suppose I opened a service in which I filled a warehouse with Tivos and antennas. End users would enter a contract where they would rent a Tivo and antenna. They would use the TIvo interface to control the content. I would have no control over what was being transmitted. Would that be illegal? What if I built a custom DVR and a custom interface? Would that be illegal? What if I used a Tivo and 'shared' each one so that six different users?

This is why the ruling is so bad. It reduces our rights to do as we wish with the content that we have given up bandwidth to receive. In excange for use of the the public airwaves, we have the right to free over the air content. That means content that we collect using an antenna and then consumer for personal use. We can record it to VCR, take that tape with us on a trip, and watch it elsewhere.

The only appropriate thing for the broadcasters to do in response to Aero, it they did not want aero to add a convince for users, is to stop using the public airwaves. Go 100% cable or stream over the internet. This is second major problem with the SCOTUS decision. If broadcasters cannot deal with Aero retransmitted a single show to a single user, and if they have become so dependent on cable, then clearly they are wasting bandwidth that could be used for other purposes. The best thing that could have happened to US, if the broadcasters are as inefficient as it seems, is that Aero put them out of business and then we would have all this bandwidth that can be sold to firms that can use it efficiently. All the SCOTUS has done is save the buggy whip industry.

The skills argument is the traditional method used to segregate the workplace, college, whatever. When the pentagon said that women had to be allowed in combat, one thing that was stressed is they had to pass the tests. There was no admission that the tests were somewhat arbitrary, developed not on some absolute basis, but on a subjective set of requirements. It is like the old SAT. If the inner city kids were getting a question correct more than the northern prep school kids, then it probably was not a valid question, because who has the better education?

Really, what this boils down to is if diversity is, in itself, a benefit. Because of the way I was raised and educated, in a very diverse schools where actual skills, talent, and discipline were the primary method of selection, I think that diversity is a benefit. I understand that others do not. I understand that a private firm should be able to select the best workforce for it's situation, diverse or not.

But I also understand that for a long time, and sometimes even today, the white male is considered the bast choice if available. It is assumed that he will command respect, be at work everyday, and not get emotional or get in a fit because of 'oppression'. It could that this is best way to proceed. Or it could be that firms, if they had a employees with wider points of view, different experiences, they might be more successful.

One thing we have seen specifically with major firms like Google and MS is they tend to recruit from very specific schools. This is more a problem for me because this will invariable create an echo chamber and lead to problems we have seen at these firms in which consumer perception is often not considered because a distinct lack of diversity.

Apple promotes Dropcam on it's website, the exact company that Google is going to buy. I don't know what homekit is going to be. Dropcam pretty much requires you to send your personal life to what soon will be Google. The lights require an hardware interface. Presumable Homekit will presumably intergrate the products, if the companies rewrite the software to Apple interfaces. Not to be cynical, but recall the number of Apple ideas that really have not panned out. For instance, I have almost no Apple ebooks.

The problem with google is that it makes most of it's money from advertising. It really has no hardware that is priced to sell, i.e. $1500 google glasses. Therefore one has to assume that at some point your personal home videos will be up for sale in some way. I am looking at y-cam and figuring out what their business model is. The only way to keep your private stuff private is to pay for it. Which is why dropcam was a good choice prior to the google purchase.

So 25 years ago or so one of the researches in the lab I worked in was really into this. I think he came from ATT. Anyway, he wanted to put vacuum tubes on a substrate. He wanted to make microlevers and the like, the predecessor to what we now know as nano machines. The microlevers have happened, and we are getting some very tiny machines. The vacuum tubes are another story. From what I have seen recently, the Terahetz problem is solved or is pretty much solved. Labs across the country are working in the Terahertz range, and developing some interesting applications. Which is to say that vacuum tubes on a chip are possible, but it seems that it might a solution looking for a problem. As I said, researchers have been looking into this for a very long time. This could be the problem that it solves. The question is does it solve problems better than what is now conventional technology.

This is they same kind of promotion that MS ran before. Give us your Apple, we will give you FMV for the product, and you can have a Surface. If you have a Macbook Air that is still running and is three years old, then this is not a bad deal. Otherwise it is FMV.

So this is a gimmick. The surface pro 3 i7 appears to be a $1500 machine, which is $100 more than the similiar Macbook Air. The cost of the MS license? In any case if they would give 30% of a Surface for any Mac Book Air, that would be a serious promotion. That would also get them converts. I am sure that are a lot of people out there who paid good money for a Macbook Air that died in less than two years(it has happened to me, but I expect it and just replace it with a new one). But others may be less tied to the product.

The thing about the surface is that is still where was where the Macbook was when it first came out. Relatively underpowered for the price. A very light laptop that runs Windows 8 well is $400. A Macbook Air that is going to run windows well is $900, unlike the $1000 Surface.

Short answer yes.

How long as someone spent in a small space underwater? In a submarine you have other people, some amenities, probably some recreation. In any case, given that the lab now has additional amenities, it is not really that same thing as Jacques spending 30 days in the lab. It is like the people climbing Everest now with professional Sherpa and gourmet meals and advanced rescue helicopters, and the people who climbed Everest without these things. However, it is still useful because this is the kind of thing we are going to have to deal with if humans are going to leave our local Earth/Moon system. It is going to be people in an extremely confined space for long periods with no way, unlike the ISS, to get back quickly once you get going. This is something we really haven't done, and expected everyone to remain sane and rational. We can't launch anything as big as Naval submarine to Mars. I am not sure if anything as big an ISS module will be launched to Mars.

Here is how this was kind of handled in an automatic case with me. I knew the password to the computer where all the credentials were stored, and access to the file cabinet where all the paper stuff was. All the passwords and information was stored in one of those two places.

For an individual person that may not work, as there may be sensitive sensitive information that you don't want anyone to see. In that case consider a separate account on your computer with the information that everyone will need in an eventuality, and a separate account on your computer. where you can do stuff you don't want people to see.

Here is my take on this. There is a lot of stuff that I don't care if no one every gets to close it. Most of my online forum acounts like /.. I expect everything on my computer to go with me. Creating data sets that are going to expire in a few months seems a bit over the top to me. The solution to this problem is to think about what people need, and assume they are going to have physical access to your stuff when you are no longer here.

I would tend to agree. It may be that people are simply not using the iPhone. To show that the reduction in theft is caused by kill switch, one would have to show the rate of theft is not correlated to the rate of use, or to some other variable such as where of who the phones are used. For instance, if Android is used by younger or older population, it could be that the phones might just be left unprotected or easier to steal. Or if the Android phones are insured,it could be that people 'lose'. I know that some of these warranties cover theft but not screens. That said, there one can easily tell one phone from another if it is out being used. It makes little sense to steal an iPhone, not only because many are shipped out of the US and iPhones are not the most popular phone outside of the US, but also because of the ability to disable the phone. So while the hypothesis is not proven, it makes some sense. There are some stories about phone theft and loss of life. It may be apocryphal, or it may be a repeat of the shoe crisis of the late 20th century where kids were killed for their Jordans. We will see what happens when all phones have the kill switch. It could be a common sense way to make us safer. It could just be a way to stop warranty fraud.

I got cable again and immediately got a energy star router and Tivo. The numbers I saw on them are so much better than what the cable provides.

This is a classic case of the need for regulation in the free market. The incentive for cable companies to buy the cheapest hardware the can and rent it for as much as the market will bear.They do not pay your electricity bill, nor do the pay the costs of generating that electricity.

However, there is always a conservative argument to not waste resources. Therefore a conservative government should regulate the industry and provide incentives to those companies that rent out low power equipment, under the current vernacular energy star.

They can use a different logo. They can use different colors. They can add a big disclaimer. There is legitimate confusion here. I personally hate when this happens, when I am looking for a company website, and someone else has set up a nearly duplicate website. I am not say that these people are malicious, probably just clueless. But really one can create an respectful homage without creating a ripoff.

I am in Texas and gained excellent middle and high school computer programming education in public schools. It was better than people who went to 'better' schools in other parts of the country.

The reason I don't take the AP test too seriously is that many subjects are taught at too broad a level, yet are tested at a very discrete level. A student has to be able to figure what third of the test to do. Even a five is often only two thirds of the test correct. It really comes down to learning to take the test, not necessarily learning the subject, and it many classes only half the school year is spent on content, while the rest is spent on test prep. The AP exams are good multiple guess tests, but they are still multiple guess tests, at least for half the points, and this leads to dominant test strategies. The other half of the test has the same problems that the essay question on the SAT has. If you memorize what to write where, you can usually get a third right.

I think AP classes are good because they give the teacher permission to teach at at a painful level. It gives the kids a chance to prepare and take a decent test, which is nothing new. High stakes testing has been the pattern for the education of the world for centuries. And it allows kids who may not have a solid basis of college readiness to prepare for college. From what I have seen of the test, it does provide any basis for a useful computer science program. It would have done nothing to help me in college. By the time I got to college, I had four solid years of programming and taking apart computers. A one year course and a fake test would not have helped me.

The story here might be that Apple is going to be looking for a new supplier. This has repercussions for investor in the sector.

This is one of those cases where security by obscurity should not be relied upon. So they answer to your question is yes and no. The owners manual should probably not be considered so secure that it should not be online. The password used for a specific machine or specific implementation of a generic hardware token probably should not be posted online.

I am not going to complain when someone wants to make a reasonable honest living. Some people like to work, and some people have talent but don't like to do the day to day grind. It is a unique type of job to have to produce a few hundred different creative products a year. Berke Brethed is another one who had a lot of talent but did not like having to fit everything into a commercial format. So he tried to break the format by doing an awesome Sunday only strip, but that did not last long. But when you have the lure of money and people who do not have to work harder than they want, or where the work can be done in committee, the carton is not going to end. The Simpon's for instance could have been cancelled a few years ago, but the actors realized they could be replaced, and I guess having work at half the rate of sitcom actors was better than having no work at all. The cost of actors is what really killed Seinfeld and Friends. But Watterson could have subcontracted out the comic, and he did not, and for that he gets a lot of credit. Of course not every comic is controlled by the writer/artists.