DISQUS

"I have trouble believing it costs anything to send a packet the size of a handshake, control channel usage and all. If anything, the costs *per message* ought to be decreasing with growth in demand, not rising.": You're disregarding the use of the control channel, though, which has to carry all the control messages. This is a narrow channel compared to the data channels, and it's an intrinsic part of the system. I'm not sure I agree with Clint on the growth in costs, and whether that means a text message cost $0.002 instead of $0.001 to deliver, but I do agree that the control channel limitations might be an issue in dense areas.

"but with newer phones wouldn't it be easier to pass a control channel command "you have text message" and have the phone connect to get it via data channels?": Interestingly this is what I found with GPS. Early cell/assisted GPS systems relied on the network, and could only work on the network. Newer systems moved from control plane to user plane, meaning that data passes over IP network (or something like it) for GPS assistance data. If SMS moved from control plane (best effort, control messages take priority, "free" for carriers to some extent) to user plane, then carriers have to start accounting differently. If I can use AIM for free on my iPhone and yet SMS costs $$$, why is that? That's partly history, partly carriers' ability to lock folks in.

It's traffic magic! Poof, the bikes get from here to here without any intervening riding.

The city used to have a number of places (notably near the Safeway pit on Stone Way) where bikers were thrown in with cars and then back out with no indication of what to do.

It's really rather clever. I expect one of the solutions would be a minor tweak to WPA-enabled networks to have WEP checksum flood control. This crack doesn't work if an access point wouldn't allow a massive number of bad WEP checksums. That's outside both the WEP and TKIP specifications, but it could be a security patch that wouldn't break TKIP if you had TKIP turned on!

Screenflow is fairly awesome. I used an early version, loved it, made some screencasts. Haven't had a chance in months to revisit latest updates to the software: http://www.flip4mac.com/screenflow.htm

Their Web site hasn't been updated since last November with "events," and it still has their current location. Someone might want to let "Nana" know!

Sheila, the bag program requires pickups at least once a day. I think in Pioneer Square, the trucks come through as often as three times a day. If properly sealed, the bags aren't ripped open.

And why would the homeless tear open garbage bags? The only grocery in town is PCC, and they are very careful about food waste handling. What would folks be looking for? We don't have a can refund.

I work in Fremont, and despite making use of the free all-day parking in the neighborhood a few days a week (usually in spots vacated by folks off to work, and I in turn leave before they return), I'm in favor of some for-fee parking. The two-hour slots don't turn over very fast, and while that makes sense for some kinds of businesses, I don't think they're exactly serving the right purpose.

I love bilsemon's idea of purchased public parking--that would work with validation from merchants (even if the merchants didn't pay for the validation or paid a tiny fee for it) to avoid abuse.

The U District has something like that.

Nice dissection. AppleInsider seems to be equating an initial authentication with subsequent security. Even if MobileMe connects you via SSL/TLS to provide credentials, the system then uses a token that cannot be cryptographically bound in the browser to the browser. This is why Google and other sites have overhauled how they handle token generation and communication, and why Gmail now offers an SSL/TLS option. Sidejacking was well explained by Errata Security in 2007; no one should be developing a service in 2008, like Apple, that relies on an initial secure authentication as the basis of subsequent communication.

Fantastically interesting post, but there's no link. And if I click Matasano Chargen at the top of the blog page, it doesn't take me to your site. (And don't get me started on how there's no link on your site that just takes you to the main current blog aggregation page.)

So...what's the product? Where is it?

The problem, of course, is that they're repurposing @ in a way that redefines it; and @ is a hard character to type except on a US English full-sized keyboard (many times). The @ sign is already so full of meaning based on position in sendmail configuration files, that adding more meanings to it in a text stream seems rather tricky. If they'd had to do it over again, they might have chosen something more mobile friendly, like .. or : or whatever. Something that could be easily tapped and not confused.

That's a lot of anger you have there, Ed. I guess the name carries it all. Apple, in fact, listens to its customers, and makes changes to its hardware and software based on what they hear, despite their statement that they create everything out of whole cloth. They just don't ACKNOWLEDGE these contributions.

This implies a) we're all reading you, and b) that writing an original composition from one's own ideas, which may happen to have a similarity to other people's ideas means you're ripping someone off.

Since I know Adam well and was privvy to seeing the drafts of the article, "rip off" is inappropriate.

As others have noted, blocking a user prevents spam after a single attempt. While I have hundreds of followers now, and some have obviously spammy/SEO names, I don't get bothered by them. And, when a colleague I happen to not really be interested in either following or having follow me tried to follow me recently, I simply blocked them. (The colleague uses their real name, so they could set up another twitter account under another name and follow me there [if they knew I blocked him or her], but that would mean having two different accounts being monitored in different ways.) Twitter is largely passive about things that are actively anti-social in social networking systems. When I block someone, they don't know they've been blocked. I just disappear off their field of vision.

Couple things: "spanks" is Jacqui's assessment, and the numbers are that it's a 40% improvement. But that's really the only score in which the better processor in the model she tested isn't mostly responsible for a better benchmark. Booting is faster, though; by more than 10 seconds over a regular 4,800 rpm drive in an Air, but not as fast as a MacBook Pro.

The other thing is that it's not a $1,300 improvement -- that includes the upgraded processor. You can get the SSD for a cheap $999.

That's the machine I've wanted for a long time, F. Steve! I'll buy a dozen when they're ready.

(Some company has been advertising a virtual laser keyboard for a long time; I figured you quietly bought them, killed the public product, and had the media report it didn't work.)

That's not ironic. Irony requires you to have the opposite of what you expect, such as, "It's ironic that I dropped $2,000 on an Apple computer only to discover that it wasn't a collection of electronics, but rather an apple ingeniously carved into the form of a computer."

Poetic justice is sometimes meant when the term irony is used, such as Steve Jobs being stopped by a cop with a speed gun that's running Windows Mobile.

In this case, you're just saying you want the opportunity to turn down hardware from a company that doesn't bother to offer it to you. I believe that term is sour grapes.

"What applications did Apple have in 1989? MacWrite, MacPaint, MacDraw, MacProject, Hypercard, and what else?" geniver asked.

Are you asking what programs did Apple itself offer or that were available for it? I studied graphic design in college, and was working in imaging service bureaus in 1989 and beyond, running Yale's in-house facility for a year, and then later working with more advanced gear at an arm of Kodak up in Maine.

Windows in 1989 was essentially unusable. System 6 had Quark, PageMaker, Illustrator. My college paper, a weekly that started up in 1985, was PageMaker based and all Macs. We managed to produce a newspaper on deadline (our daily rival used Quark).

Scott, great idea. I received product from a company I will not name, and as a freelance journalist who writes for many outlets and my own sites, I could not keep them. The company did not want them back. So I auctioned them on eBay, and sent several hundred dollars to charity (including an extra amount to cover the tax benefit to me since I was also giving additional cash).

To those on this forum and elsewhere who think Scott is doing something wrong, remember that unsolicited merchandise received by you is yours. This is a long-standing law in regards to the US Mail, and I expect that other carriers qualify. There was apparently a time in which companies would ship products and then demand payment without having received an order from a person. So Scott is basically in the position of having received an unsolicited product coupled with email that explicitly states that it is his. IANAL, and I can still tell that there's no possible way that he could be compelled to return that laptop.

As for ethics -- there's no good way for a journalist (which Scott doesn't accuse himself of being) to accept free products or services from a company. Scott's certainly in a better position since he doesn't (I believe) write or contribute to publications or participate in organizations that specifically tell their contributors or members to not accept gifts from companies.

There was a whole kerfuffle a few months ago when an article appeared about NY Times columnist David Pogue having accepted free hard drive restoration from Drivesavers. While Pogue had disclosed that he had received the service for free in his regular NY Times email newsletter, he had not told NPR and CBS, where he discussed the service, about that element. This was tricky because before this point, the Times didn't necessarily require that services be paid for or reimbursed. And what Pogue received was a service and he disclosed that fact. To be squeakier clean about it, the Times now pays for any service that they cover. Times policy doesn't allow hardware sent for review to be kept.

Davis, you do write about a free network, and Google will provide 300 Kbps service at no cost under this deal. But the network is primarily designed to be a for-fee system, with EarthLink offering wholesale rates that will translate into about $20 per month for 1 Mbps symmetrical access.

John Gilmore wrote: "Google and Earthlink could put up their own WiFi network today, without city permission, if they put their equipment up on private homes and buildings (with consent of the owners), and paid for their own electricity. That’s a deal they are not interested in."

I'll go one step further, John: Google and EarthLink have the right under the Telecom Act of 1996 to get reasonable, non-discriminatory access to utility poles. Now, while Southern Edison has been playing games about pole access down in the southern part of your fine state, that hasn't been the case in the more sensible northern half.

Google and EarthLink could build a network with no city support of any kind and gain access to utility poles. Not city facilities, however, which would require separate negotiation. Again, they could do this without the city's direct involvement, including getting access to things like Twin Peaks. (Just ask Tim Pozar of BAWRN.)

John also writes: "And so Earthlink can monopolize the “public use” WiFi frequencies all over the city, selling “premium” wifi service that people will have to buy to escape the very low bandwidth of the “free” service."

While I wrote a somewhat skeptical article about metro-scale Wi-Fi networks and interference for The Economist (March 2006 Technology Quarterly issue), I don't truly believe that it's possible for EarthLink or any firm to deploy a network that actually highly degrades Wi-Fi across a city. The complaints would cause too much political fallout. The FCC has some specific ways in which they would get involved in Part 15 disputes, but the idea that EarthLink would actually be able to monopolize the network -- it's possible, and it's a very real fear (see Tim Pozar, again!) -- I don't think in practical terms it can happen without truly destroying EarthLink's reputation. I am, of course, curious how putting devices that produce the highest legal output with omnidirectional antennas across an entire city actually affects existing indoor and outdoor deployments. The results may surprise us all -- it may work just fine (Wi-Fi may be resilient enough, more than we expect or believe), or it may totally destroy existing networks (Wi-Fi may be too fragile when one provider blankets the entire spectral territory).

I was a little appalled by Sprint's tactics. They contacted me by a sort of mass mail out of the blue offering me essentially about $500 of free service. I was a bit indignant as a reporter. Bloggers can run by different rules, especially if they aren't writing about products or pretending to be objective or if they disclose the relationship. Or other conditions. But I thought Sprint was pretty blatantly saying, hey, here's $500 worth of free stuff!

Actually, that's Jeff Barr's post at Amazon. I merely left a comment.

Remember that Motorola's acquisition XtremeSpectrum already had signed consumer electronics deals. Unless those were bogus, those companies may come to market even if Motorola's house brand solution does not.

Now I see why you thought I was confused. I'm not saying that Motorola and 80 companies are on even footing. Rather, that Motorola will bring its products to market and so will the MBOA. Even positing this early that the MBOA's technology will win, you will still have a market potentially full of Motorola and XtremeSpectrum technology.

Another factor. Xtreme has many patents in this field. In the IEEE process, patents for standards must be licensed on reasonable and customary terms to all parties. With the MBOA out of the IEEE process, the likelihood of patent lawsuits dramatically increases with Motorola funding it as an effort to maintain a disruptive marketplace in which they can maintain their hold on manufacturing partners.

Of course Motorola bet early and long on HomeRF, too.

I'm not confused. The MBOA is 80 companies, but I think it's premature to say that Motorola's intended UWB specification will lose. There are too many variables in this. My main intent is note that the MBOA has entirely exited the IEEE process.