It was a fantasy trip on Buzz Out Loud today, wherein fairy dust and unicorns are the new power generators of the future (Bloom Box), Mothra wants to eat your children ("looming spectrum crisis"), and we've got to save the beer-foam-measurement blogs (Web archiving policies in the UK). We've got a way with dry news. --Molly
Secret Microsoft legal compliance doc leaked, site taken down offNet
Bloom Box: savior of the universe
TV stations asked to yield 500MHz of spectrum for broadband
…different from whitespace which gets atest in NC
Sprint to launch 4G network in at least 8 major markets this year
Palm’s revenue to be ‘well below’ forecasts
Apple Adds and Removes 'Explicit' Category from App Store
LG’s first Windows Phone 7 handset shipping as early as September
Kickers and Science
Web Heritage Could Be Lost
Conan O’Brien joins Twitter (and is hilarious)
Anonymous Hacker got busted in Florida
Son of a tanker captain in Whittier
I think Apple’s policies make more sense if you think of them not as “censorship” (meaning, based on moral values) but as “controlling how the store looks.” Apple spends a lot of energy to make sure that their stores (physical and virtual) look “nice” and people have a good experience, especially a good first impression. I have heard people complain about these type of apps creeping into search results in unrelated categories, and (unsurprisingly) being in the high rated lists that Apple uses to show off the best apps. Does anyone really think that Apple is “moral” enough to reject some companies money? If the policy were based on morals, there would be no exceptions, but since publishers that have a reputation as ‘classy’ (relatively speaking) are left in. I think this is primarily a case of Apple trying to weed out a bunch of apps, and trying to craft a policy to meet that.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with this…I don’t like arbitrary policies, and if I were developing for the iphone, I would hate that part of the process, but as a consumer, I would hate for 3 of every 4 apps to be “bikini girls”, because then the store is not as valuable.
Brian in NC (and I have actually listened to the radio station you talked about)
Regarding the discussion about Google execs being held criminally liable by an Italian court for a video showing a scene of physical abuse of a disabled kid, in show 1172, I think it was brought up that if Google’s system of flagging works, whereby the video got removed anyway 2 months after being posted, then isn’t that enough for the courts? I am completely sympathetic to this view, but just this morning I listened to lastnight’s Marketplace podcast on which it was reported that Google did not take down the video even after complaints were raised until contacted by Italian police, after two months.
With this slightly different angle, the question becomes ‘why did Google not have a more vigorous flag-based removal-pending-approval auto-takedown system in place?’ Suddenly my sympathies are reversed. This does seem like Google to omit a clear vehicle of utilizing public participation and feedback, a la Gmail having no useful customer support forums (only a Google group).
Thanks smiley emoticon
Richard from Rochester
Was listening to episode 1171 where you talked about the weak GPS system. The US government has been working on a new system with some advanced features like a blocker for unapproved devices. So the US and allies could have GPS while blocking all others in certain areas..
Kind of awesome
Keep up the great show!
Adam from PA
Sent from my iPhone
Just to clarify on yesterday’s email, Verizon Store in Barstow is a private retailer called Mobile Choice and not a corporate store. It is very possible they are not getting more Pre’s as they can pick and choose what they sell and at what price.
Thanks and keep BOLing