I mean, it is executing non-native code (6510 asm) without (I'm guessing) recompiling it for iPhone, providing a way to run programs with an in-between layer to not use the native stuff or keep Apples glorious blessing on the code. This is essentially what java or flash does, construct a secondary layer where code can run. On the other hand, Apple is Apple and pretty much reserves the right to be inconsistent, bizarre and allow or disallow things at will depending on what suits them so I guess it's par for the course.

Many do to prevent verifying the existence of an address. This is pretty reasonable, especially if the email leads itself to a username (not that they do much anymore) and to prevent general recon for compiling "good" lists. A few years back I wrote a script to verify a few hundred email addresses (for good, in fact you'd have to pay $100/month or so to be on it - some journal about labor law cases). About half would treat existing and non-existing addresses equally, of the rest about half sent bounces, half denied you in SMTP. I'm sure number have changed. In the far past, it was common to bounce "doesn't exist" to spam, hoping to be taken off the list. Kinda like beeping a fax tone at automated telemarketing dialers. Neither worked all that long.

I remember the launch, at the later time when they actually became useful I thought they'd simply changed their name to paypal or were named paypal but also linked x.com. The domain was touted for easy use on mobiles (a little doubtful since it's not significantly easier then any other domain and by the time mobiles with web made sense they were good enough to handle bookmarks). At the time only a little over half of the two-letter domains were taken and while 100% of singles were taken not all were registered that long ago.

And what, one might ask, was accomplished then? It looks a tiny bit less like Formula 1 and doesn't have to go through the pesky business of getting a bunch of money from people who sell crap to idiots allowing you to pay it all yourself instead? Brilliant dude, where do I sign up for that? I mostly prefer non-ad stuff, but a lot of real world stuff does have ads on it. If they do and you're emulating it, hell yeah, cash the checks instead of mine. I'm not much of a gamer (the games I prefer won't count as games and they won't get sponsors much) or a TV watcher. I think it's better to charge a fair price for a fair product then to go through the complicated business of charging a sponsor to put a sign on content you might enjoy which then would positively bias you toward said product causing you to buy it thus repaying the maker who paid the content producer. It seems overkill and less simple then paying for what you get. However, the world clearly doesn't see it that way and I'm a-ok with that, each to their own. I think pre- or post- game ads are really way more invasive then "product placement" type stuff. Either one gets in the way, but really, if you are to replicate reality it'll be there. You could replace it with "Koka Khola", sure, not much artistic loss but what's the point rather then just sticking it to Coke to fork up at least a little to have the real logo. And I don't think companies worry too much about carnage and mayhem. Ads work by "You're happier then you were a minute ago now due to enjoying something"->"You see our logo/pitch in front of you". One thing you can say for ad supported media is that it's very democratic in a ruthless sort of way, you won't get sponsors unless you can demonstrate X amount of impact on Y amount of people.

I'd agree with "when people stop trying to draw artificial lines and realize hardware is hardware, only various degrees of suitable". My daughter (at six) uses an ancient laptop revived with linux and a PCMCIA WiFi off ebay. Is that a netbook? It sure works much like one - not a whole lot of power locally but enough so she can play online kids games. My sons Acer One is a lot faster and a lot smaller, though he uses it more like a laptop - MS Office and/or OpenOffice (I don't interrogate him on which he settled on) and all that - but it's mostly for online work. I use my laptop mostly online, but it's not especially powerful by todays standards which is OK because it's enough for what I need it for. There is no line - they fade seamlessly from 128x128 opera mini supporting boost phone all the way to laptops that would work fine as a small server via any device in between.

For one book, this kind of thinking makes sense. If this is a regularly occurring issue, it'd make sense to find a faster way then a flatbed scanner to get through it. I have no idea how feasible this is in real life. Working data entry we'd usually chop the back and put them in a sheet feed, but then you have a destroyed book and also sheet feed scanners aren't exactly commonplace. It's pretty interesting that there are at least some solutions around, I may just be too out of the loop to realize how much things have advanced.

You can set it to mix them to one phone. Being a married man with three kids, I barely remember the concept of stereo - having one ear to play music into is a rarity, but not needing even one on the world at large is unheard of. Perhaps it's good to someone but I'm not sure how terribly difficult it is to tap a key or two to get your phones to do what you need.

The point isn't that they're the target market, but that they are somewhat useful and completely harmless. I hacked on every calculator I used (you have to do something while watching the dry as paint lectures and they're an allowed tool in school. Hey, perhaps I do think this English lecture needs some mathematical analysis, who are you to judge?) and I have no earthly idea how exploring their deeper workings did any harm at all to the maker. Also, this is the group that will (I've noticed) be asked what calculator you should buy. I bought all that were allowed in school pretty much, so that won't help you, but I was also the go to guy for 20 and by extension hundreds for "Ok, so what's the deal here? What should I buy?". It's crazy. I'm not sure what they're trying to prevent. They sell hardware and pretty much that only. They're not razorblade - they charge full price for the hardware they sell. What's the point in even trying to prevent people from doing what they feel like with it? Of course they have certain amounts of right to do so, just as we have every right to not buy their crappy locked down platforms, but it's hard to see where alienating the enthusiasts, which by secondary steps will alienate a ton more who asked them "So what about TI?" and got the answer "Assholes sued me for trying to write a better point graph fitter. Don't buy it" while gaining nothing useful.

Nothing terribly much locally. Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson was pretty cool last I saw it. Indianapolis Museum of Natural History was also pretty cool. They have a few here in Wichita, but unless it's just on the way anyhow I'm not so sure I'd bother.

This, to me, would be the core point of this whole debate. It is a hardware problem. iPhones (as most of Apples portable offerings) are not free (as in freedom) unless cracked open - those of us with the hard rule of "it runs my code or it doesn't get bought" only have them if morally ok with jailbreaking and unlocking them. That isn't the fault of some dudes trying to offer a version of xpilot (which is so cool BTW), that's Apple.

I've seen "against the spirit" GPL stuff now and again doing document and image handling. A lot of software provides the source so that they can use a GPL toolchain, but provide it so obscurely and in such a form that it's virtually impossible to recompile, read or use and do so for the express purpose of extracting a bit of cash for paying for the particular implementation. That's wrong. I don't think that's what these guys are doing. Given a reasonable way to distribute, they probably would. Apple doesn't do that sort of thing, it's a rather "pay to play" business. Since (if that's indeed the case) the source, binary and distribution in general is as open as they can be under such a severely locked platform, then I'd figure they've done what they can then - the only other option is to not develop for the iPhone or to only have non-GPL stuff on the iPhone.

It's far from clear why men don't like to wear condoms and women don't like for men to wear condoms. The former is probably more likely, but the latter isn't unheard of. Sensitivity issues enter in, but there is certainly a psychological issue involved as well. You aren't skin on skin, not really. With the adult products now, some situations I'm not even sure a lot of people could pass a double-blind. However, there is also correct use, being able to get people to use it correctly (both for effectiveness and for not messing it up). You won't be in your right mind at the time. Or, at least that's what we're all hoping you won't be. So it kind of matters how much is what here and you won't get answers out of humans (yes, I'm one) because it doesn't work like that. Take out ten edge cases of people who would have otherwise not used rubber and you've easily paid for yourself (in actual cash, they have to be raised/treated). Not sure if that's the states job, but at least it's pretty likely to not be a waste. If, oddly, it produces nothing then at least we know a little more about the matter which would be handy.

Not online - online be completely honest. People appreciate that. But while people say "OMG it's so easy to lie online", meatspace is usually no less (or, for that matter, more) deceptive and it's not even home turf. However, all those confident people are actually just pretending to be confident. I'm not saying go into full social engineering mode and lie like there's no tomorrow, but act as you would expect someone confident to act. Try to imagine how you'd act if this social thing wasn't a problem. Not snotty or "my calendar is full" but not as though you're desperate to get past saying "Hello" without embarrassing yourself (there's no shame in that, everyone secretly is). Surprisingly, it's way easier then it seems and everyone else is mostly pretending too anyhow so people will indeed believe you if you pretend to be confident. Most of the time. If they don't, reboot, accept that you just made a fool out of yourself and move on - the "cool" people did that too only you weren't there to see it.

I'd think going for slightly non-geek girls would also be a good idea if it's going into a more long term thing (I know, I know - why think about that before the short term has even became remotely a reality, but it'll come up later since you'll make it). My wife (met online (yawn)) isn't nearly as geeky but abnormal enough to make her accept me as well as see that we compliment each other very well, doing many of each others formerly hard tasks (social issues - talk to my wife. tech issues - talk to my husband). It's a frustrating relationship at times, but man, you do not want to go up against us in meatspace - every base is covered.

Also, make sure you research the.. more physical side of things carefully. Non-geeks dating or starting to date geeks expect us to be, while inexperienced, quite well versed (which is generally a very good guess) so be sure if it comes to that you keep our banner high.