I think the prohibition on desktop apps has to do with security. Desktop apps are too prone to viruses.
Loading User Information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading User Information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
What is so hard for Microsoft to get windows to run on an ARM processor? I assume ARM has more power than the hardware that ran windows XP PCs. For a company that is all about software, Microsoft seems very slow getting its operating systems to work on the hardware on the market today. Back in the day Microsoft had great success marketing DOS and BASIC that ran on generic hardware. Now we have windows phone 7 that only runs on a few phones. And desktop windows that does not run on ARM devices.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.