Should users be allowed to 'unlock' their cellphones?

One of the several advantages of SIM technology is the ability to seamlessly swap out cell phones with like-banded phones.If you've taken to the former, DIY method, some recent news might not sit well with you. Michael Gowan of TechNewsDaily reported late yesterday evening that unlocking cell phones without the carrier's permission will be illegal as of this Saturday, January 26. In October, says Gowan, the Library of Congress concluded that unlocking cell phones would not be granted an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and would no longer be legal. Those who still wanted to unlock their cell phones before the act was deemed illegal were given a 90-day window, which closes this Friday.

This may prove troublesome for T-Mobile and other carriers who openly allow customers to "bring your own device" (BYOD) and offer incentives to those who do.

It could also create a hurdle for those looking to take the prepaid plunge. Considering the prepaid device selections are still paltry and outdated in comparison to postpaid offerings, more and more U.S. wireless customers have taken their unlocked Smartphone to a prepaid carrier to save significant chunks of change each month.

You may recall another controversial ruling around the DMCA for us mobile guys and gals. In July 2010, the Librarian of Congress ruled that rooting (Android) and jailbreaking (iOS) devices was legal under the DMCA. However, in October 2012, yet another change was made. It's legal to root and jailbreak smart phones, yet tablets are not covered in that exemption due to the lack of a solid definition (i.e.: an e-reader could be considered a tablet, as could a laptop, in a weird sort of way). But I digress …

You might be thinking, "I bought my smartphone, I should have free reign to do as I please with it! If jailbreaking/rooting is legal, why isn't unlocking?" But jailbreaking, rooting and unlocking are all vastly different in nature. There is much more at play here than just the hardware, software and networks involved.

Most U.S. wireless subscribers adhere to the subsidized lifestyle, which means they sign a contractual agreement – likely two years – and can purchase the phone at a significantly lower price ($20 to 300 versus $400 to $800). It also means a very small demographic is actually affected by this change to the DMCA.The only people this truly affects are those who swap devices often, BYOD prepaid customers seeking better devices or those who purchase used smartphones and unlock them unofficially, particularly iPhone users, as iPhones purchase with a contract are an entirely different story. But, like I said, there is no shortage of smartphones that come unlocked from the factory these days. The Nexus 4 from Google is a prime example, as is the iPhone 5 through Verizon or DROID DNA. And lest we forget about international devices.

While some may be adverse to the ruling, this change that goes into effect this Saturday is not cause for alarm for the vast majority of wireless users, even those who like or need to unlock smartphones. Still, I can't say I agree with the ruling. As long as you're out of contract, you should have the ability to unlock your smartphone as you please.

Illegal Immigrants Shouldn't be Allowed to Stay until Citizenship is Granted

Over the last few months most conservatives have quite naturally been distracted by Barack Obama's frightening incompetence, his elephantine spending, and his zealous attempts to swallow as much of the private sector as the government beast can stuff down its gaping maw. But while the cat's away, the mice will play. The little feet you may have been hearing pitter-patter back into the public square? They belong to advocates of amnesty for illegal aliens. Oh, they don't necessarily call it that. They call it comprehensive immigration reform, earned legalization, a path to citizenship -- but, it all amounts to the same thing: rewarding people for breaking our laws.

1) It will only encourage more illegal immigrants to come here. We've already had a "one time only" amnesty deal for illegals. It occurred during the Reagan Administration and the idea was supposed to be that we'd allow the illegals who were here to become citizens and we'd simultaneously beef up security to try to keep the problem from occurring again. Well, guess what? That very bipartisan sounding compromise didn't work. To the contrary, it failed miserably. So why in the world would anyone who actually wants to stop illegal immigration want to try something that has already been proven to be counterproductive? We have far more illegals in America today than we did when the "one time" amnesty went through. Do we want 20 million illegals here when the next amnesty goes through? 30 million? Are we going to be accused of racism if we say the next huge wave of illegals shouldn't be given citizenship either? Where does it end?

2) Illegal aliens take jobs from American citizens. The economy stinks. American citizens are out of work. People are going out every day looking for jobs to support their family and they're coming home empty handed. Meanwhile, there are illegal aliens in this country holding jobs that American citizens would otherwise have. "Oh, but those are jobs Americans won't do!" There's no such thing. There's no job in this country that couldn't be filled if every illegal disappeared tomorrow -- but, here's the catch: the crooked business owners who are knowingly hiring the illegals might have to pay what the job is worth instead of hiring people who let everyone else pay their health care, pay their car insurance, and pay their share of the taxes.

3) We're importing poverty. It's no secret that the majority of illegals are uneducated manual laborers. In fact, that's supposed to be one of their selling points, isn't it? Don't advocates of amnesty say we need illegals to do the dirty, hard, manual labor that "Americans won't do?" But even if that were true, which it’s not, people with very limited skills often turn into liabilities for a society as they age. There aren't a lot of people picking oranges and scrubbing floors at fifty years old. In other words, in order to help crooked business owners get cheap labor today, the rest of society has to be burdened with people who are going to cost society far more than they ever pay in taxes. Are American taxpayers so unburdened that we want to actually bring in even more people to carry on their backs?

Heaven Exists

A Harvard neurosurgeon has said that heaven exists after he came out of a seven-day coma where the "human" part of his brain was deactivated.

Dr Eben Alexander said that his near-death experience had convinced him that heaven was real, Newsweek reported. In his book, Proof of Heaven, he argues: "God and the soul are real and death is not the end of personal existence but only a transition."

Alexander explains that, as a neurosurgeon, he has always questioned people who claim to have had near-death experiences because there is a rational scientific explanation for such feelings.

Researchers from Edinburgh University and the Medical Research Council in Cambridge backed his earlier assertions and said that most experiences could be put down to reactions in the brain.

So-called out-of-body experiences, for example, happen when there is a breakdown of multisensory processes, they said. Well-documented visions of tunnels and bright lights could be the result of oxygen deprivation.

But Alexander has rebutted his own beliefs after he fell into a coma as a result of an attack by the E. coli bacteria in 2008. He says he now has scientific proof that heaven exists.

He writes: "There is no scientific explanation for the fact that while my body lay in coma, my mind - my conscious, inner self - was alive and well.

"While the neurons of my cortex were stunned to complete inactivity by the bacteria that had attacked them, my brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe: a dimension I'd never dreamed existed and which the old, pre-coma me would have been more than happy to explain was a simple impossibility."

He said of his journey to the other side: "For most of my journey, someone else was with me. A woman. She was young, and I remember what she looked like in complete detail. She had high cheekbones and deep-blue eyes. Golden brown tresses framed her lovely face.

"When first I saw her, we were riding along together on an intricately patterned surface, which after a moment I recognised as the wing of a butterfly. 

"Without using any words, she spoke to me. The message went through me like a wind, and I instantly understood that it was true. I knew so in the same way that I knew that the world around us was real - was not some fantasy, passing and insubstantial."

Police in Every School

       A politician, with the support of the National Rifle Association, fairly recently suggested that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.

And liberals did not have a conniption fit. That was in 2000, by then President Bill Clinton, who on the one year anniversary of Columbine suggested that the country consider a national program to place more armed guards in schools to protect our children.  Clinton unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money was to be used provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.  During its duration, the program placed almost 3,000 armed officers in a thousand schools nationwide.

The public, as usual, is far ahead of the media and liberal politicians on this issue.  Several polls show the public is solidly behind this idea as well.   In a Pew poll, 64% of Americans support having armed guards in schools.  However, 57% do oppose arming teachers and other staff.  A recent Rasmussen poll showed the following results:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of American adults would feel safer if their child’s school had an armed security guard. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% would feel safer if their child attended a school where no adults were allowed to have guns. Another 20% are undecided.

Among parents of school-aged children, support for armed guards is even higher. Sixty-two percent (62%) of such parents would feel safer with an armed security guard at the school, while 22% would feel safer if their child attended a gun-free school.

Gun Control

      Our options are further complicated by the union of these scales. On one extreme no private citizen can own any guns (AA, which is functionally equivalent to AR), while at the other extreme, every private citizen can own any gun, with no restrictions (NA+NR). But once we leave those extremes, which few people hold, the options are defined by a pair of coordinates along these distinct scales. While most people embrace positions on the "same" end of both scales, others embrace more exotic mixtures: some will want few weapons available to private citizens, but virtually no restrictions on those guns that are available (MA+NR), while others may prefer making most guns available, but want to seriously restrict them (NA+MR). So our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control, but to decide who can own which guns, under what conditions. Although I cannot pretend to provide a definitive account here, I can isolate the central issues and offer the broad outline of an appropriate solution. To simplify discussion, I adopt the following locutions: those opposed to most abolition and most restrictions advocate a "serious right to bear arms," while those supporting more widespread abolition and more substantial restrictions are "gun control advocates." This simplification, of course, masks significant disagreements among advocates of each position.

The Death of a Loved One (TEST)

The death of a loved one will change your entire life.

Every area of your life will be affected by the death of a loved one. Our world is irreparably changed by the simple fact that our love one is no longer a part of it. Learning to live in this new world can be challenging, as we slowly make our way towards our new lives without the physical presence of our loved ones. How does the death of a loved one affect you, and what can you do to ensure a happy, meaningful and rewarding life after your loved one has died? You will be challenged physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually by the death of your loved one. Every level of your existence will come into question, as you re-frame, examine and process your loss throughout your grief journey. The body-mind-soul connection is clearly recognized in the grieving individual. The enormous emotional upheaval experienced at the death of a loved one often weakens the physical body, causing many mourners to experience various aches and pains. Death is very hard to wrap your mind around. The closer the relationship (and therefore, the emotional investment) is to the deceased, the more profound the effect. Short term memory loss is common, and though frustrating, it usually disappears within a few months. Much more difficult to process is the actual relationship with the deceased, it's highlights and low points, and the eternal question of 'what if'. Regrets seem insurmountable when you have no recourse for correcting them.

Indispensable Possession

My most indispensable possession in my life is my collections of memories, memories that make me laugh, make me cry and make me inspire. Those are my most indispensable possessions because all of those memories serve as my friend every time I’m weak, my comedian every time I’m sad and my inspiration. Those possessions will always in be my mind and my heart and no one else will steal it from me. Try to imagine life without memories. We would have no identity. We would ask the same questions over and over because we would not be able to remember the answers to them. We would live forever in the present moment and have no recollection of our pasts, including people and experiences that are important to us, and no anticipation of the future.