Discussions

2 hours ago, ManipUni wrote

From what I've read they have given Nokia "special" access to the system to develop apps, just that entire concept that different manufacturers get different app access to their own hardware scares me. The fact that the emulator is useless scares me. The fact that it is $99 to run your own apps scares me. The fact that it was and is impossible to develop a IM-like application without having Microsoft hardcode it into the OS its self scares me. WP7 might never take off because Microsoft created an anti-developer platform. They hate developers. I'm skipping. 

the $99 fee has stopped me from writing a WP7 app. And I still do not understand why a Windows Mobile like OS and  the .NET framework is not available for any phone that can run Android.

12 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

The problem with getting a credit is then the user has to be charged, otherwise you might be the one using it to get credit for your own use of it.

Once you start charging a user for using it, they might as well have stayed on the regular cell network.

both parties contract with a broker. People with WiFi capacity sell that capacity to the broker. The broker supplies the customized dd-wrt software to run on the wifi router. Buyers, who want a wifi connection, pay the broker per month. The broker supplies the software that runs on the PC or handheld device that enables it to connect to the wifi of those who are selling their capacity.

10 minutes ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

 

I would NEVER go for that!

for one thing how long before someone hacks how it works and can suck all the bandwith for free and you are left with  a bill and crappy internet ?

cable / isp / telco's do not use high end routers as they do not want to pay a lot for them and do not want a bunch of assets on the books etc....   so how are you going to make low cost hardware that has all of the features to make sure the home user does not get taken ?

no for the roaming devices they need to just work on better mobile network systems.

the telco's have a huge R&D and ROI to motiviate them to keep at it.

replace the telco router with a better model and run DD-WRT customized for the purpose of providing metered service to WIFI users. There is a boarding house above my office and the people staying there are always looking for WiFi to tap into.  I would let people on the network if I knew I could keep them away from my traffic.

There was an interesting op ed in the WSJ on thurs about how internet providers are working on enabling their customers wifi routers to be used to provide internet access to nearby cell phones and tablets. Where the hand held device switches from one wifi connection to another as it roams. And when wifi is not available, switch to a cell phone network. 

Maybe the person with the home wifi router would get a credit on their bill for allowing the public on their network.

Could there be an app that would run in your router that would safely accept outside traffic?  The hand held device user pays a monthly fee to a wifi capacity provider. That capacity provider then pays individuals with wifi networks to run the app on their router that opens their wifi router up to the paying customers. And payment is based on the amount of traffic that goes thru the router.

5 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

He makes the argument that there are still things that science can't explain (consciousness, emotions, hope, etc.) and therefore a pure science worldview doesn't make sense. Until we can fully explain things, including the reason they happen, then religion has a place in human society. In his view, science cannot be a replacement for religion because it does not answer the "why".

So 500 years from now, with science still not able to create or explain consciousness, not able to recreate the big bang ( on a small scale of course ), will science state with certainty that God is the answer?

Here on earth, it seems impossible that humans would be the only life form to develop intelligence. Shouldn't natural selection produce smarter and smarter prey and predators? Primates fight each other. The first one smart enough to find a club and use it as a weapon would have a natural selection advantage over others.

5 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

What mechanism did the creator use in order to "create"? Did he just declare "Let there be the universe!" and poof, the universe sprang into being? Or did he fold up his arms and blink? Or did he wiggle his nose?

consider what humans will be able to create in 1000 years. They will have the technology to create new cellular forms based on a completely redesigned DNA. And they will have the technology to send that new life form to another solar system in our galaxy. Future humans will be the creators of life on a far away planet. They will be intelligent designers.

Can't it be possible that we were created by a distant civilization of intelligent beings? Unexplained is how was our creator created. But at least a logical case can be made that we could have been created.

From the position of an intelligent designer, having people die and then born again is a very good way to deal with the problem of free will, autonomous individuals becoming bored with eternity.  I read over and over again that the universe just works. That there are numerous law of nature necessary for the galaxies and solar system to form, for life to be supportable and then to have evolved. I think circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly favors the existance of a creator.

1 hour ago,wastingtime​withforums wrote

 

I think business users generate more money. And business users want the desktop.

I think Microsoft wants to see a monthly income stream from each of its users. That is why we are hearing all this Azure crap all the time on C9.

If winRT apps are sandboxed that means a PC cannot be malwared thru a winRT app, correct? If so, I think it would be a huge step forward for user's to be able to use their PC without the threat of  malware attacks.

2 hours ago,wastingtime​withforums wrote

The only way I would be fine with Windows 8 is if there would be a way to completely deactivate Metro or at least make it so that you won't notice it much (add a start menu!) and some sort of promise that the traditional Desktop won't get deprecated for at least ten years.

the metro desktop is where the money is.  Microsoft can make money thru people's daily use of their ddetects gestures would replace the need to touch the displayesktop apps. Why you need touch to make a tiled desktop work is something I do not understand.  Maybe a keyboard that detects gestures would make a desktop metro more useable.