The FCC doesn't require search warents?

OK, I'm going to take a strongly political slant today, instead of my normal technological one.   Good luck!

As many of you know, I am an Amateur Radio Operator, and as such, I get a lot of information about goings on amongst the various radio services.   Today, in a newsletter from the Amateur Radio Relay Legue, there was an article about an individual in California who is causing major interference with a local fire station's radio equipment with their CB radio.   It is the job of the FCC to force compliance among all the radio licenses, settle disputes, etc, and so it is clearly in their realm to do an investigation.  In this case, agents from the FCC made several visits to this CB operator's house, requesting to inspect the equipment for compliance, and the operator denied them access without a search warrant.  In response, the FCC has submitted an order that revokes the person's license to operate, instituted a fine, and deemed the operator as being out of compliance with rules for not allowing the inspection of his equipment without a warrant.

OK, here's where my feelings fall on the subject.  The FCC was doing their job by responding to the Fire Department's request, their investigation was thorough and well done, and they hadn't stepped on anyone's rights by requesting to inspect the equipment.   Additionally, I feel the operator in question was correct in refusing them without a warrant, on the following grounds:  Yes, the license for any radio license gives the FCC the privilege of inspecting your equipment for compliance, and an operator should honor their request.   However, that does not make the FCC more important than the constitution...   If this operator didn't want the FCC on his property, their only course of action is to revoke his license and possibly assess a fine for the interference alone... The equipment inspection should be used only to PROTECT the operator, not as a means of intimidation.

 Now, don't get me wrong, I think this operator is in violation of his licence, should have it revoked, and should be fined.   I think $7000 is excessive and unconstitutional, and I think the FCC should not be making any wars over the Search Warrant issue.   I don't think they have overstepped their authority in this case, but I think the agents chose poor wording and have opened themselves to a lawsuit.  In fact, if such a lawsuit gets filed, I will side with the operator on the subject, as the agents stating they don't need a warrant indicates a blatant disrespect of the constitution from the FCC, and from the Executive Branch as a whole.   They need to be put in check.  As a means of clarification, here's the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

 Certainly, the person can have their license to operate revoked.  But their property can not be inspected or seized without a warrant from the judge.

Cell Phone data plans

T-Mobile recently ran a commercial that states that they offer data plans starting at $10 a month... Well, I went and found out what that means:  $10 for 200MB a month.   I then installed an app on my phone called "Stats Free" to calcuate my data usage, cleared it's logs, deleted all my local email cache and then I synced my 3 email accounts back on, and updated a few apps that were out of date...  I blew through 17.8MB in 10 minutes.   Sure, abnormal behavior.   However, I am a pretty heavy data user, and I wanted to get a number that represented what I might actually use in a month, without having to wait that long...   Assuming I can keep myself under that much in an entire day (I mean, I DO have WiFi at work and at home... How hard can it be?), I would still require a 500-600MB per month data plan.

So much for T-Mobile's "Cheap" plans...

I have been researching handheld GPS devices recently, mostly out of personal curiosity about what's available, but partly out of interest of getting a device I can load my own maps onto and take backpacking.   Not wanting to settle for anything less than the best, I am torn between the Garmin GPSMAP 62 and the GPSMAP78.   They are largely the same GPS, but the 78 comes preloaded with nautical maps, and the 62 covers Topo 100K maps...  Either way, I would be replacing the onboard stuff with Topo 24K maps, so the preloaded stuff is not a determining factor... In the end, I will just have to hold them and see which one feels better in my hands.

That being said, the maps I can buy from Garmin are only of a certain amount of utility... They are nice, but they only give me what Garmin wants me to have, and that simply won't do.  As a student of Geographic Information Systems, I need the ability to load GIS data onto my device, and to get data back off again.   I am largely annoyed by the lack of consumer grade devices that have this ability.

In an attempt to get what I need without dropping nearly $3 grand on one of these bad boys: Trimble Nomad 900GXE, I discovered this cool software called OziExplorer.   I'm pretty stoked about the idea...  It converts tracks and points to Shapefiles (.shp) and back again.   It's neat stuff.

There's also the constant nagging from the back of my mind that I should try to get GrassGIS running on one of my linux machines... Maybe I can get someone to buy me the hardware in exchange for my research and my skills....

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145&pID=63802
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145&pID=63603
http://www.google.com/search?q=Trimble%C2%AE+Nomad%C2%AE+900G&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Trimble%C2%AE+Nomad%C2%AE+900G&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=1vY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbs=shop:1&ei=RUwiTfmXOIbSsAO9jsGRCg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CBkQ_AU&biw=1920&bih=866&fp=9bef8cda26d1a6ec
http://gpstracklog.com/2006/01/using_gis_data__1.html

I want an iPad...

The iPhone was a very useful device for me for a very long time.  I used the iPhone, and then the iPhone 3G, for almost 3 years.   It was a solid upgrade from my Palm Treo, and it did everything I ever wanted it to.   Eventually, I switched to T-Mobile, and being a nerd, I wanted the freedoms that Android provided, and that Apple refused me.   So now I use a Garminfone.   But I still honor what the iPhone brought me and I appreciate it's innovations.

I will not be owning another handheld Apple device.   The innovations that they bring are no longer relevant to me.   However, being a college student, I do resent certain historically accepted truths:  I hate expensive text books, I hate taking notes on paper, I hate teachers that don't let me use a laptop in class...   The iPad seems to be attempting to change some of these things.

The iBookstore is seeking to bring textbooks to a mobile platform.   This should make buying books CHEAPER, not to mention quite a bit lighter.   What student DOESN'T look forward to dumping their heavy backpacks?   It also opens the door to interactive learning techniques that are not currently available.   The iBookstore doesn't currently have ANY of the text books I needed this semester, but Apple stands to profit form this, and they know it.   Knowing their history with iTunes, I have no doubt that I will be saving more than the cost of an iPad before I graduate in 3 years.

Once I have my text books on my iPad, there will be no excuse for my teachers to not let me take notes on my iPad as well.   The fantastic interface and apps available on the iPad will make scribbling all over my books, on "Note pads" next to it, and linking in web sites far easier than anything before... Imagine what Microsoft Office OneNote could have been if it was integrated with your text books?   If these abilities are not already in the iPad, shame on Apple, and shame on the third party developers.   I am confident that the open ecosystem of the App store will provide SOMETHING that gets these things done.   Additionally, the iPad gets far better battery life than my laptop, and it is simply better suited for my needs anyway, given the proper software.

I was initially concerned about taking notes on the device, and not being able to print.   I thought I would use Google Docs as a replacement, but alas, they did not support editing on the iPad.   However, Apple has now announced that they are bringing printing support to the device, eliminated one of my biggest detraction.  And as if that isn't enough, Google has announced that they are allowing the iPad to edit Google Documents.   Even if no one develops a OneNote-for-your-textbooks type app, Google Wave and Google Docs will find a feasible solution.   And since Google owns me anyway, this can only be a good thing.   I welcome Google's cloud into my learning experience, and I am confident they will keep the innovations coming.

But I don't think I can justify buying a device for school that doesn't provide something for me for entertainment and after college as well.   Being able to watch movies is great, and the iPad has plenty of options built in to that end.   Additionally, VLC has developed an iPad version, bringing the many media formats that Apple doesn't endorse to the device.   Gaming is always a fun distraction too, and the iPad is certainly strong in that as well.

But the iPad is lacking in one glaring way, and this is the culmination of this blog post:  The lack of FaceTime.

There is a Camera Connection Kit for the iPad.   It is used to connect your camera or your SD card, or by some innovative people to attach a hard drive, to your iPad, and it lets you copy videos and images from your camera.   It even supports USB headphones, microphones, and MIDI devices.   It is everything you expect from a USB port on your computer, simply missing drivers for certain devices.   And one such device I miss is a webcam driver.  

Apple is playing up Facetime, bringing it to the iPhone, the iPod touch, and probably to PCs and Macs in the near future.  They bill it as an open standard (Although I havn't seen any competing apps yet), and that will surely mean it comes to Linux and Windows soon enough, not to mention the eventual entry into Android and other mobile platforms as well.   With all of these devices running FaceTime, it would be a shame to not have it on an iPad, especially when the interface is already available.  

I wouldn't mind having a built in camera in my iPad, possibly both a front facing and a rear facing one.   But what would REALLY excite me is being able to plug my Logitech Pro 9000 into that bad boy, and have it load into Facetime.   My webcam is better than any built-in cameras, it's microphone kicks ass, and I can place it and point it anywhere, regardless of how I hold the device.   Additionally, they already know that taking pictures on a REAL digital camera is better than doing it on a built in sensor, hence why they built this adaptor in the first place.  

I call to apple, PLEASE provide us with FaceTime's wonder, but PLEASE don't make us suffer with sub-par hardware... let us choose our hardware, and let us use Facetime on all of our devices.   That is my one and only bar on getting the iPad.

Removing software features, feature clutter, and what to do about it

The other day, Google Reader did some spring cleaning.   They removed a couple features, added some new ones, and generally did things that make me happy.    However, they admit that it's not going to make everyone happy, and linked to a couple articles on the subject.   One such article is the Adobe one referenced to in this blog.

Now, first off, it DOES hurt to lose features.   It is NICE to know that when you rely on a feature, it might stick around for a while, and when it doesn't, it hurts.   But in my life, there has never been a time where it hurt me in the long run.   I have had friends who stuck with older versions of Firefox to keep particular features, but even they have all now upgraded.   I guess the biggest victims are those who use websites (Facebook has had this problem on several occasions), and iPhone apps, where you don't have the OPTION to switch back to an older version.   For them, there may not be a true alternitive, but this blog intends to give some options.

Feature clutter is a big problem.   I use some VERY high end products in my career, namely ArcGIS and AutoCAD Map 3D, which have more features than any one person will ever use in their entire career.   In fact, my GIS teacher said once that every task you will ever do can be done equally well with no less than 3 different tools, and no one of those is any better than the other, you must simply know which works best for you.  AutoCAD has a similar problem.   This is the kind of thing that I would like to see removed from those apps...   However, they have a creative solution, one that Adobe does in their latest versions of Photoshop.

In that Adobe article, they describe a tool called Configurator.   I have not used Adobe's particular tool, but AutoCAD has something that matches that explanation almost to the T.   What it does, is allow you to pick and choose which tools you want displayed, and where you want them.   AutoCAD goes so far as to ask you on first-start which default settings you want to use, giving options for several past versions.   Once done, you can then mix-and-match which new features you want in your menus, toolbars, and keyboard shortcuts.   It is an extreme example of giving the users every feature that has ever existed in AutoCAD, and allowing them to make it their own.  ArcGIS isn't as customizable, giving only the option to create custom "Toolboxes" to store your most common tools, but it really is nice to have every tool that ever existed at my finger tips, just in case I need the features of one, that arn't met by another.  Both allow you to stick toolbars anywhere on the screen, either as a stand alone box, or they can snap to any of the 4 sides of the screen, or the 4 corners;  The options are endless in that regard.  Photoshop, I'm sure, lies somewhere between the two, and other examples may exist.

Now, these are EXTREMELY complex apps, used by proffessionals who know what they want and will work to get it.   They also cost a small fortune (ArcGIS will run $3-4 thousand just to get started, significantly more if you want some of the bigger extensions), so losing a feature might cost a user a lot of money.  So what about the normal, every day user apps?  

Having options on the DVD that don't install by default is nice.   Being able to customize your toolbars and menus to fit your needs is really handy.    Having a deprecated feature find it's way into the Extras folder on the DVD is probably the best option of all, then if you can track witch extras are being added, you can get a feel for what direction you need to go in for future releases.   Firefox does this with it's extensions and toolbars, and we are beginning to see it gain traction in other web browsers as well.   On the iPhone, this could be done through the "In-App purchases" feature of the app store, even as free "Purchases".  

It IS hard to remove features, but as Adobe has demonstrated, it's really not the end of the world.   In my experience, customization is the answer...   Maybe others can offer other suggestions in the comments section here ;)   

Apple might be on to something...

Before I get to the link, let me get into a debate I have been having with myself, often at the expense of those around me...

Apple has done an amazing thing with the iPhone/iPod touch, by making a device that is just amazingly intuitive, with amazing hardware, software, and a fan base that will never let it fail.   They continued that success with a great app store, which allows a person to expand the functionality of their already amazing phone.   They then carried those inovations, and many others into the iPad.  

Poor naming aside, I think the iPad is an amazing product for a select group of people.   Finally, students and profesionals can find a home in the Apple sub-notebook environment (I am including handhelds in that catagory for the purposes of this discussion).   The iPad trully is better than a netbook in every way that it was designed.

My conclusion here is that Apple has built a device that is trully amazing.  It seems to be the perfect combination of software and hardware.   Finally, what makes it such is the wild success of the app store.

However, Apple is very tyranical in how they run the app store.   Sure, they want to make sure all the software in their store works to their standards and maintains their philosophies.   To that end, they are entitled.   On the other hand, there are those of us that want to be able to install anything we want, and Apple won't allow us to.   We must resort to jailbreaking to get back the control Apple has taken.

This brings me to the article.   Steve Jobs is right, Apple has the right to make any mandates on their store that they feel is correct.   Ryan Tate is ALSO correct in that users deserve the right to run software they want, weather it meets Apple's standards or not;  Further, developers deserve the right to market to those who do not share Apple's beliefs.  And thus is the debate...

The debate might be a small one on a device like the iPhone or iPad.   They are, afterall, merely advanced handheld devices.   No one expects anything more than what's in Apple's walled garden.   However, rumor has it that some future version of Mac OS will have a similar App Store.   And I have to say that I agree such a move is likely.  

The App store is brilliant for most of the people out there.   It provides easy, one stop access to all the available software titles, and it keeps them up to date easily, forever.   Linux distrobutions have software management systems that are similar to that end, and I defend them tooth and nail.   The entire system is simply brilliant.  

However, where Apple's app store diverges from the software management systems on Linux is simple, but vitally important:   Even though a linux distribution has it's own repositories, with the software they have tested and recommend, it is still possible to add OTHER software sources.   Apple has their source, and that is it.  

I can't morally suggest that Apple should release the control they have over the app store.   It provides a great solution for the mass majority of the people who use their devices, and it keeps all software on the device up to date.   But before I can endorse further advancement of the App store into the mac world, I have to see the ability to add other sources.  I would be happy if it was hidden, difficult to enable, and came with a warning that says "Adding other sources is not recommended, and may give you access to software that may void your warranty, please proceed at your own risk"...  As long as it IS there, and it is official.  

This is the solution I envision to the debate that Mr Jobs and Mr Tate had in that email thread, and if they hope to release the app store to full sized computers, I suggest that it is the ONLY solution that will save Apple.   

I only hope that if ANY system gets an app store with third party repositories, that they ALL do. 

Christains, Calendars, and... THIS IS FREAKING WEIRD...

OK, I ranted once to some of you (A long LONG time ago... It's not even in my Gmail logs anymore ;) ) about how Easter is based on being the 14th day after the middle of the moon cycle in march... Or SOMETHING LIKE THAT...  And how I feel like it's wrong for Christians to critisize "peagans" for astrology, yet Christains base one of the biggest holidays of the year off of moon cycles?   WTF...

 

Anyway, this rant isn't about that.  This rant is about the Julian VS. the Gregorian Calendars. 

 

It comes up, because I was reading about the Tunguska Event (AKA, the totally badass explosion that happened in Russia for some unknown reason... Probably a meteoroid or comet exploding in the atmosphere, creating the equivolant of a large nuclear bomb, knocking down HELLA trees....  But I digress...) and it mentioned a discrepency in the dates... Apparently Russia was using the "Julian Calandar" at the time, while much of the rest of the world was using a "Gregorian Calandar."  Some difference of 16 days or something like that.

 

Anyway, so I decided that I needed to look up the difference between the calendars, and this is where shit got weird:  It's all based on how the Julian Calendar had a leap year every 4 years, but that messed up the lunar calandar.  Apparently gaining a day every 300 years... So after 1200 years, the Catholics looked at the moon and said "Damn, we are 3 days behind the moon... Easter is wrong!"  I guess it also caused a conflict where Easter would fall in the middle of Rome's birthday, which is a "Pegan Holiday" and we can't overlap that, no, that would be wrong too...

 

Anyway, long story short, they cut out a bunch of leap years... Something to the effect of "Every year devisable by 4 will be a leap year, unless the year is devisable by 100, in which case it WON'T be a leap year, unless it's a year devided by 400, in which case it WILL again."  Or something like that.  In other words, 2000 will, 2004 will, 2008 will, 2012 will... But 2100 won't, and 2200 won't, and 2300 won't.  But 2400 will!  Stay on your toes!

 

Anyway, so I guess it's more correct now... But why the hell did it have to be fixed JUST FOR EASTER!

 

And what happens every 100,000 years (or so) when we loose a day they didn't account for? And what about the decaying orbit of the earth?  And...

 

OK, I'm done.

 

Here are my sources:

Tunguska Event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

Julian Calendar:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar

Gregorian Calendar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar