i just read this article on zeropaid about someone who created a livecd that has a program on it to test if you're ISP is throttling your bit torrent traffic. if you're paranoid like me and want to track the man's grip on your shit check it out, all you have to do is download and burn a cd:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9355/Gemini+Project+LiveCD+Tests+Your+ISP+For+BitTorrent+Blocking
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
for the mothers of bike riders
this caught my eye as something i should've thought of. body airbags for motorcyclists. if you're interested check it out:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/25/daineses-d-tec-wearable-airbag-on-sale-in-2010/
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/25/daineses-d-tec-wearable-airbag-on-sale-in-2010/
Monday, March 24, 2008
why i love google even more
so the bidding for the 700Mhz wireless spectrum is over and the winners have been decided. verizon has been declared the winner but why should you care?
well this new spectrum is what future wireless data is going to be running on. in the future, there's a very high chance that > 90% of internet will run over wireless. if this happens, the rules that are decided now are going to have a major effect on everyone in the future.
it could be the difference in having to pay for valuable programs or getting them for free. this may not 'click' for you, but if developers, like myself, can put applications on your phone for free, the apps will be made for you, the consumer. on the flip side, a developer like me wouldn't be able to pay the thousands of dollars it would cost to get my apps on your phone. the only people that would are big companies, driven by profit giving you shitty applications that you could still really use, but have to pay for because they want to squeeze every cent out of you that they can.
it all boils down to one basic statement: open means for the consumer, closed means for the business. now where does google fit into this?
google manipulated the system by putting in an early minimum big for the big spectrum, and got laws passed that will: 1.) allow almost any phone to be allowed on almost any phone network (i.e verizon or at&t) 2.) allow almost any app to be put on that phone for free.
this is huge for consumers, though google won't be getting much credit for it in the media(who obviously won't benefit much from this). google, keep up being the friendly giant :)
check the link for more info:
techcrunch.com
well this new spectrum is what future wireless data is going to be running on. in the future, there's a very high chance that > 90% of internet will run over wireless. if this happens, the rules that are decided now are going to have a major effect on everyone in the future.
it could be the difference in having to pay for valuable programs or getting them for free. this may not 'click' for you, but if developers, like myself, can put applications on your phone for free, the apps will be made for you, the consumer. on the flip side, a developer like me wouldn't be able to pay the thousands of dollars it would cost to get my apps on your phone. the only people that would are big companies, driven by profit giving you shitty applications that you could still really use, but have to pay for because they want to squeeze every cent out of you that they can.
it all boils down to one basic statement: open means for the consumer, closed means for the business. now where does google fit into this?
google manipulated the system by putting in an early minimum big for the big spectrum, and got laws passed that will: 1.) allow almost any phone to be allowed on almost any phone network (i.e verizon or at&t) 2.) allow almost any app to be put on that phone for free.
this is huge for consumers, though google won't be getting much credit for it in the media(who obviously won't benefit much from this). google, keep up being the friendly giant :)
check the link for more info:
techcrunch.com
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
my clarity in the numbers
i want to do my own analysis of what the delegate numbers mean and some possible outcome math. i'm going to forget about super delegates because i believe those should go with the majority of the popular vote, but that's just me.
so, according to demconwatch, obama, at this moment, has 148 more pledged delegates than clinton. with 566 pledged delegates left, there's plenty of room for clinton to come back, but is that going to be possible?
now lets take the primaries from last tuesday. in texas, including both the primaries and the caucus, obama took more delegates. in vermont and new hampshire the difference gives a slight delegate advantage to clinton. these basically cancel out (<> 120 delegates. but then comes NC and IN, which she will most likely not be able to make any gain on obama.
after those primaries come west virginia, oregon, kentucky, puerto rico, montana and south dakota. those equate to 217 delegates, and half of them are caucuses which have helped obama every time except for nevada (and possibly penn coming up). with current trends, obama and clinton will come out of these with one of them having a less than 20 delegate gain. this is just speculation based on the trends, but it has a more than 50% chance of happening.
now there's the michigan and florida question. the best case scenario for clinton is that the votes that were taken in their primaries get counted. a revote would, most likely, be advantageous to obama. if they were seated how they were voted, it would give clinton a 111 delegate gain. this is most likely not to happen, mainly because obama's name wasn't even on the michigan ballot, but it is her most favorable situation.
now you factor in the super delegate, which right now have a clinton advanatge between 30 and 45 delegates.
so here's the breakdown. clinton needs to catch up on about 120 delegates. she can do that by:
1.) winning the majority of the rest of the states by more than 15 points and doubling her super delegate advantage.
2.) getting her original votes in MI and FL counted
3.) getting a revote in MI and FL and majority of the states and getting a bigger gain than she has in super delegates.
my prediction:
1.) FL and MI votes won't get counted. the only fair way to do it would be a revote, which there's currently no way to pay for.
2.) obama will get a majority of delegates in the remaining states. at least by 20.
3.) the super delegates will even out and neither of the 2 will have more than a 30 delegate gain from them.
these will keep obama around 100+ delegates and win the nomination. clinton has to make some huge upsets, and i just don't see her having the resources to do it. if she doesn't get votes in MI and FL counted and she doesn't have a significant gain in delegates after NC and IN she should raise the white flag and start campaigning for 2012.
so, according to demconwatch, obama, at this moment, has 148 more pledged delegates than clinton. with 566 pledged delegates left, there's plenty of room for clinton to come back, but is that going to be possible?
now lets take the primaries from last tuesday. in texas, including both the primaries and the caucus, obama took more delegates. in vermont and new hampshire the difference gives a slight delegate advantage to clinton. these basically cancel out (<> 120 delegates. but then comes NC and IN, which she will most likely not be able to make any gain on obama.
after those primaries come west virginia, oregon, kentucky, puerto rico, montana and south dakota. those equate to 217 delegates, and half of them are caucuses which have helped obama every time except for nevada (and possibly penn coming up). with current trends, obama and clinton will come out of these with one of them having a less than 20 delegate gain. this is just speculation based on the trends, but it has a more than 50% chance of happening.
now there's the michigan and florida question. the best case scenario for clinton is that the votes that were taken in their primaries get counted. a revote would, most likely, be advantageous to obama. if they were seated how they were voted, it would give clinton a 111 delegate gain. this is most likely not to happen, mainly because obama's name wasn't even on the michigan ballot, but it is her most favorable situation.
now you factor in the super delegate, which right now have a clinton advanatge between 30 and 45 delegates.
so here's the breakdown. clinton needs to catch up on about 120 delegates. she can do that by:
1.) winning the majority of the rest of the states by more than 15 points and doubling her super delegate advantage.
2.) getting her original votes in MI and FL counted
3.) getting a revote in MI and FL and majority of the states and getting a bigger gain than she has in super delegates.
my prediction:
1.) FL and MI votes won't get counted. the only fair way to do it would be a revote, which there's currently no way to pay for.
2.) obama will get a majority of delegates in the remaining states. at least by 20.
3.) the super delegates will even out and neither of the 2 will have more than a 30 delegate gain from them.
these will keep obama around 100+ delegates and win the nomination. clinton has to make some huge upsets, and i just don't see her having the resources to do it. if she doesn't get votes in MI and FL counted and she doesn't have a significant gain in delegates after NC and IN she should raise the white flag and start campaigning for 2012.
Monday, March 10, 2008
politics...a new opinion
i'd like to think to give a good opinion a person should have a very balanced and unbiased view of the world, and a good knack for being able to see the true character of people. it's a easy tell, but you have to be honest and open with your view of the world to see it correctly. that being said i am going to start giving my opinion on the mess that is american, or maybe even world, politics.
it's a little late for me to be doing this, but i have too many other priorities in my life to have started any sooner. i have never thought that i would know enough of what was going on to publicly voice my opinions, but hopefully this will help me a little to clear the fog in my mind from the misinformation that i get in our media.
i was once told that the solution that is the most simple is almost always the correct one. i like to try and use that statement to explain most of my opinions. this doesn't mean that i'm going to leave out anything meaningful in order to keep it simple, but i will try and make it simple as possible. already, because this has gone three paragraphs, i'm sure i've lost over half the people reading.
now, today in politics we have another day of miss. clinton bringing something in the press and mr. obama rejecting it. something that's been happening since she's started attacking him. it's funny to think, but clinton is trying to say that obama would make a great vp, but not president. does that not make sense to anyone else? don't you have to be equal to the president in case something happens to him/her?
so why would she even say this? getting people to vote for her because they could get both candidates sounds a little weird to me, especially coming from someone who's in second place. shouldn't she be trying to make the argument to be vp?
it's a little late for me to be doing this, but i have too many other priorities in my life to have started any sooner. i have never thought that i would know enough of what was going on to publicly voice my opinions, but hopefully this will help me a little to clear the fog in my mind from the misinformation that i get in our media.
i was once told that the solution that is the most simple is almost always the correct one. i like to try and use that statement to explain most of my opinions. this doesn't mean that i'm going to leave out anything meaningful in order to keep it simple, but i will try and make it simple as possible. already, because this has gone three paragraphs, i'm sure i've lost over half the people reading.
now, today in politics we have another day of miss. clinton bringing something in the press and mr. obama rejecting it. something that's been happening since she's started attacking him. it's funny to think, but clinton is trying to say that obama would make a great vp, but not president. does that not make sense to anyone else? don't you have to be equal to the president in case something happens to him/her?
so why would she even say this? getting people to vote for her because they could get both candidates sounds a little weird to me, especially coming from someone who's in second place. shouldn't she be trying to make the argument to be vp?
Friday, March 7, 2008
Do I hear a RIM SDK coming in the future?
What Apple did yesterday, in releasing their sdk, was basically taking the price to make mobile apps better for developers. You might be thinking that this is only going to effect iPhone/iTouch users, but it's not. When a big, up-and-coming product like the iPhone does something like this it's going to set the bar for the future of that type of product.
Right now it costs thousands of dollars to become a mobile developer. And not just once, you have to pay a huge fee for each platform you want your app on. For someone like me, an individual developer, these costs make it near impossible for me to get in the game. What Apple just did is take that thousands of dollars cost, and bring it down to $99. They are smart enough to know they can make up for it by charging 30% of whatever money you bring in.
This is now going to push big mobile (RIM etc) to become similar to compete. Once the iPhone becomes a better choice for business, RIM stocks are going to plummet.
Now if only the people developing Android would get off their asses and get into the market, devs like me could have some real fun. damn the man, open the market!
Right now it costs thousands of dollars to become a mobile developer. And not just once, you have to pay a huge fee for each platform you want your app on. For someone like me, an individual developer, these costs make it near impossible for me to get in the game. What Apple just did is take that thousands of dollars cost, and bring it down to $99. They are smart enough to know they can make up for it by charging 30% of whatever money you bring in.
This is now going to push big mobile (RIM etc) to become similar to compete. Once the iPhone becomes a better choice for business, RIM stocks are going to plummet.
Now if only the people developing Android would get off their asses and get into the market, devs like me could have some real fun. damn the man, open the market!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
iPhone/iTouch SDK
today apple released their software dev kit for their touch products which will be available to every customer in a couple months. here are the basics:
1.) Runs the same on both iPhone and iTouch
2.) Customers get apps from iTunes and new app called 'App Store' ("if you don't go through Apple, you can't get on the phone")
3.) Download the sdk for free
4.) Developers name their price(I think this means there can be free apps).
5.) Developers make 70% of app price.
6.) Launch of iFund for iPhone devs. Starting at $100million
This is going to be something big for me. Time to put this thing to the test(and buy an iTouch).
http://www.macworld.com/article/132376/2008/03/liveupdate.html
1.) Runs the same on both iPhone and iTouch
2.) Customers get apps from iTunes and new app called 'App Store' ("if you don't go through Apple, you can't get on the phone")
3.) Download the sdk for free
4.) Developers name their price(I think this means there can be free apps).
5.) Developers make 70% of app price.
6.) Launch of iFund for iPhone devs. Starting at $100million
This is going to be something big for me. Time to put this thing to the test(and buy an iTouch).
http://www.macworld.com/article/132376/2008/03/liveupdate.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
