Hi IQ is no barrier to wrong headed thinking.

If you read the linked article you will see:

Only recently, one Scottish local authority was fined £140,000 ($220,000) for five separate data breaches — the highest fine imposed by the courts to date.

Furthermore the summary was quoting the original article, hence the quotation marks, so don't take it out on the summary.

I think you're mistaking use requirements with superiority. I don't want to start a flame war, or fan the flames, but technically both iOS and Android have similar capabilties. The examples you give are design choices to make things easier for ordinary people rather than measures of inferiority. This isn't an apology just an observation.

Consider the placing of files on a filesystem. The number of times I've had to help people find images, movies, other files, on their phone because they didn't know where it was. Was it on the internal memory, was it on a memory card. It shouldn't matter. They just want to look at the picture, not learn how the filesystem on their phone is organised. Its unnecessary detail. Its a design choice to make things easier to understand.

As a counter example; Text messaging on an HTC Android phone. The more messages you have on the phone the worse performance gets. You get a nice helpful display of the count of messages you have exchanged with a person but the way that these are managed and presented causes the phone to lock up once the message count gets high as it loads all the messages. On iOS this performance hit doesn't happen. You are only presented with a manageable number of the most recent messages. If you want to go further back you hit a button to load more messages. This is a design choice by both and in this case iOS is superior.

Superiority is a judgement call based on requirements. For your specific requirements Android is obviously a better fit, for others iOS is a better fit.

Consider why Google is so keen on making Android a success. Its nothing to do with battling the evil of Apple. Its nothing to do with fighting the OSS fight. Its nothing to do with making the data free. Its all about keeping Google relevant in the post-PC world and ensuring they are able to deliver GoogleAds to as many people as possible and thus maintain an income. This move by Google is to make sure that their partners stick with Android and don't go off and do their own thing.

According to my iPhone there is no calendar beyond Wednesday 2nd April 2149. It won't even let you book an all day event, so the end must come sometime during that day.

It will be afforded the normal protection due to the ships of the flag carrying nation. It doesn't suddenly become the wild uncontrolled seas once you head out into international waters. I wouldn't be surprised if there are reciprocal aggrements in place that would give say Marshall Islands registered ships some protection from the US Coastguard even though they are in international waters.

I don't agree with the original poster about the deficiencies in IrDA.

This was in a time when dial-up access was the norm, if you were lucky you had ISDN, and your cellphone gave you patch 9600 baud connectivity. IrDA was fine in this situation.

I used my Nokia 6320 phone and Palm V to restart servers whilst on call from the comfort of restaurants, and even to make changes to Perl scripts from a different country. The range was poor, but fine, the performance was limited by the cellphone not IrDA.

Kids of today, they've no idea

and I think that youre mostly kind of wrong. Who wins?

Google keeps what makes it money secret. The rest is just about driving traffic towards Google to allow it to make money. Its not important to the bottom line so there is no need to keep it secret. This isn't so different to Apple placing Darwin and WebKit in the public domain.

Except that it implies an ordered direction to evolution, one that is controlled by some intelligence, to that end it is at odds with the general scientific principle of evolution. The differences between ID and creationism are a fig leaf. Fundementally they provide the same answer to the origin issue. That some super being, for which there is no testable evidence, that ordered things as they are.

The questions you ask are interesting, but I'd counter with a simple reversal of them. For each question you can ask why not. Its ok to not know, which is the nub of all questions of faith and religious belief. In general people believe in a god figure because the alternative, that mankind is simply another animal, that evolved by chance, and there is no greater purpose in life than their lot on earth, isn't something that they can stomach. Their is a need for there to be more to their existance than this mortal coil.

As a non-believer that is happy with this I have a couple of questions:

* If a god is required to bring mankind into being, how or what created this god?
* If its ok for a god to have just existed, why isn't it ok for life on the earth to have evolved as it has by chance?

Eventually you get to a point where you just have to accept that you don't have an answer.

Reading the provisions in the bill its not so much a ban on porn but rather restricting access to it unless the primary subscriber has expressed a desire to see it and can prove that they are 18 or over.

All of the mobile (cell) providers in the UK already operate a similar system for Internet access over their networks. The ISPs will introduce a similar system if they feel that their consumers want it.

If the subscriber opts in though anyone in the household will be able to get all of the porn that they want so its pretty much a fig leaf exercise for the Daily Mail readers.