There are reasons why, sometimes, it's just not possible to load content with the functionality desired within the same window.

For example, right now I'm working on a project that requires me to query another server for a header that contains user-specific elements, such as message counts, user-specific links, etc.

Unfortunately, we're utilizing a fairly inflexible partner-provided API for the basic infrastructure of the site, but a branded header from a third party. Due to restrictions of the partner's API, the only server-side include that can be done requires that the connection be made without passing user-specific cookies. (i.e. the server goes and queries the brand's server for the header, but can't pass the user's cookies/credentials over when it does, thus, can only return code in that query that isn't user-specific.) However, due to the aforementioned need that the header support user-specific details, that solution isn't sufficient. The browser would normally provide this via cookies and/or session data, but since it's a server-to-server connection that makes the header request, that isn't possible until the API is changed to support passing browser variables and cookies in the query. So, in the meantime, an iframe will probably be used to bridge the gap. Since it's the browser that's making the request, the user's cookies/session data remains intact when the query is made, so the code returned is user-specific.

Is it ideal? No. Is it the only feasible way to solve the problem until the header is normalized or the partner's API is made more flexible? Yep! We don't live in a laboratory; we live in the real world. Sometimes, we're told to build something and handed a set of tools that isn't the best way to do the job. There isn't always time or flexibility to do it "right", as much as we wish we could convince our bosses (or in this case, partners) to do so. And in those circumstances, I'm glad we at least have the flexibility of frames/iframes to get the job done. I hate using them, but sometimes you're stuck between a deadline and an inflexible API, and there just isn't another option in the time you have.

"I was jes' follerin' orders, boss!"

As Meehawl has pointed out, Sprint has been doing this for years. What he didn't mention is that Sprint has offered the MyFi 5-user mobile hotspot (3G) for years, and has just released the Overdrive (4g) as well. At $99, it's sort of a no-brainer - that's what most of the single-user mobile broadband cards cost. My Sierra Wireless 3G card is getting a little long in the tooth, and this seems like a great replacement. Of course, it's not as small and easily portable as one of the mobile hotspots, but I'll give up a little room in my bag if it means my wife and/or colleagues can get online as well. Very handy. What's funny is that the article even *mentions* a mobile hotspot. But I'd rather have a 4G version, and the ability to pull it out of the car and take it with me to meetings, coffee shops, etc. rather than be tethered to a car. With the car charger I'll be able to use it in the car if I want, but don't *have* to. There seems to be no apparent reason to get this device, unless a mobile hotspot isn't available in your area. (Which, considering this article describes a demo that took place in the UK, is quite possible.)

I wasn't suggesting that they "handle" it in the sense that they would rule against it. I was wondering how they would address it politically. CCP has said quite a bit in the past about how this sort of thing is possible, and how trying to police the world against such activity can actually be counter-productive in many ways. I was just pondering precisely how they would address it. For example, would there be a drop in standings? Would some kind of world-specific CONCORD-like police force (MPs? Commanding officers? Lynch mobs?) retaliate in any way? Would that player's ability to venture out into specific areas or accept certain types of missions be affected?

I fail to see how anything I said could possibly be construed as justifying lying or breaking contracts. What on *earth* are you talking about?

Are you talking about the device itself "lying" to Apple's software? First, I don't consider that "lying", since we're not talking about a sentient being at any point in the process.

Second, even if a device delivering an invalid identifier to software *was* somehow "lying", think about these occurences that happen EVERY DAY: Forging http headers for QA/testing purposes. Replacing chips in your vehicle for better performance. Using third-party inject/toner cartridges, lenses for cameras, batteries, etc. NONE of that would be possible if hardware didn't "lie" to software. Does this hurt the market? Of course not. It helps foster innovation, which helps the market. Consider how much those inkjet cartridges or lenses would cost you if no third-party alternative was available.

Third, Palm isn't under contract with Apple not to do it, so there's not breach of contract. (Otherwise, Apple would have filed suit.)

As an aside, you may wish to consult with a professional for your anger management issues. All I did was express an opinion, then clarified what I meant. How that makes me an asshole is beyond me. And the fact that you hope I'll die for it? Yeah, maybe it's time to go back on the meds.

I wonder how CCP will handle issues of commanders allied with the opposing force, and commanding his/her forces to their doom? This *is* the Eve universe, after all...

It's almost like you barely skimmed my post instead of actually reading it.

I'm NOT saying Apple needs to "open" their platform. I'm saying Apple shouldn't be *closing* their platform to legitimate uses such as this. Continuing to force other companies out like this *is* anti-competitive, since it prevents legitimate competition. Now, the USB-IF's ruling may change that, but the analogy stands.

You might want to read the referenced article. It states "The USB Implementers Forum has finally responded to Palm's complaints that Apple is violating its USB-IF Membership Agreement by preventing the Pre from syncing with iTunes."

In other words, Palm is claiming that Apple is required to not intentionally DISABLE third-party devices.

You're missing the point. Palm isn't (I don't think?) trying to claim that Apple is required to remain compatible with third-party devices. Palm is claiming that Apple is required to not intentionally DISABLE third-party devices for the sole purpose of remaining the only company with a device that can sync with your software.

Look, it's one thing to unintentionally break functionality due to a change your API in order to offer new features or functionality, and because you don't want to spend your resources supporting third-party devices. But it's quite another to intentionally break them just because you don't want them to use your software.

Ubiquitous car analogy: You buy a Honda Civic and your alternator breaks. Joe's Alternators has a third-party alternator that will work fine and is cheaper/has better features/whatever, but the next time you take your car in for service, they update your vehicles firmware, and now the alternator won't work. If Honda accidentally disabled the alternator because all of their new alternators have been updated to a tighter spec, hey; that's life. But does Honda have the right to disable all third-party alternators just because they want you to buy *their* alternator? Isn't that the very definition of anti-competitive?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because the law says you have rights, you actually *have* those rights. Allow me to clear that up for you:

Your rights aren't what you're granted by the law. Your rights are what you can actually enforce, be it on the street or in a courtroom.

You have the right to be treated with respect and dignity by authorities, and yet we read stories (or worse, have our own stories to tell) about being abused by law enforcement officers. You have the right to a fair and speedy trial and the right to confront your accuser, yet many "prosecutor's judges" will try to get you to waive those rights, even going so far as to ignore them unless you speak up.

I once had a judge who tried to tell me that I couldn't file motions because the trial had already begun. (WTF?! Good thing I brought caselaw!) I've had a judge tell me that I couldn't present evidence because I hadn't shown it to the officer who was there as a witness against me. (Witnesses aren't prosecutors, and don't have the right to look at your evidence. He actually asked "Come on, just show the officer your evidence. What could it hurt?" I said "My case, your Honor.") I've had a judge tell me that I had no right to a court reporter or to record my own trial. (These rights have been upheld by the CA Supreme Court, who went so far as to state that denying them was an abuse of power. When I stated that he pushed my trial to the end of the day's calendar.) I fought hard for my rights, and was rewarded with some of them. But not all of them.

Just because the law says something is so doesn't mean it is. I hope that, if he is innocent, he will be exonerated. But don't assume that, just because someone is innocent, they will be treated as such in the end. Fight for your rights, and fight for theirs too, because someday it might well be you in the courtroom, hoping that someone else will speak up for you.