Slashdot Mirror

Er, what? Is this like a modern day "Television isn't a real word" type of deal?

No, it's like the old days, when words were in "books", such as "dictionaries".

Its gotta start somewhere. In this case, I've seen "Bioinspiration" used a number of times already.

I don't read lot of zoo press releases, so I guess I'm out of the loop on this.

So is Google apparently

I would buy a "Samsung Galaxy Fuck You Apple". Not sure what it is or what it costs, but I'm pretty sure I need at least two of them. Are the specs going to be better than the "Google Nexus Fuck You Apple" or the "HTC Retribution Fuck You Apple"?

Check out this conceptual design for a new Samsung tablet. It assiduously avoids infringing Apple's "rounded rectangle" patent minefield by choosing a novel "twin galaxy" shape.

This one has it pretty bad. The light from the sky over washes the building, but the taller building in back "protects" the middle area.

Knowledge is power. With great power comes great responsibility.

You wish.

Presenting security certifications from Trust, Mcafee and Norton says nothing about how they'll use personal data. It just means that they might be less susceptible to hacking (but I personally doubt it) than companies without similar certifications.

It means you're not reading it like a lawyer.

"The company rushes to counter privacy concerns by pointing out that their service has "received security certifications from TRUSTe, McAfee and Norton."

"The company's concerns are counter-privacy" and/or "they're rushing to counter your privacy" seem pretty consistent with "TRUSTe, McAfee and Norton."

Remember, A TrustE is still a con. (Attr. to Agent 01413 of the Lumber Cartel (TINLC), and to Socks the Cat, ca. 1999 or earlier - the earliest I could find was in a .sig quote from 1999 - and scattered around the web, off and on, for at least ten years .)

I have no problem with finding Samsung in violation of Apple's design patents. Their copying there was pretty blatant. It's not "round cornered rectangles," as is often said by those who can't be bothered to understand the issues.

That's a very nice assertion. Unfortunately, with no facts or citations to back it up, it's just as valid as any other assertion. Look, here's mine:

"Apple's design patent consisted of nothing but a rectangle with round corners, unlike what is often said by Apple fanboys who can't be bothered to uncover the facts"

And look, I'll even provide you with a link to the patent that backs up my claim.

The forman, Velvin Hogan is, IMHO, a patent troll. His "invention" is a TiVo, with options for a few minor and obvious additions (removable storage!, how inventive). He filed for the patent 3 years after TiVo first shipped.

Seems to me he's just an opportunistic SOB hoping to make some money from some company who would rather pay than fight. Of course he wants to defend patents against invalidation due to obviousness or prior art. His would be worthless if that were easy to do.

Any number of patents by other companies show similar drawings. Eg. : LG television receiver (rectangle with kickstand), Nokia Handset (rounded body with 2 buttons), etc. This is about the look of the device in general, not rounded corners specifically. Of course people have jumped to that conclusion because Apple devices on the outside are famously featureless (spartan in appearance) which in a technical drawing ends up looking like a rounded rectangle. This is why in the court case the jury did not rule exclusively based on the patent but was also shown a lot of the prototypes and design documents.

Any number of patents by other companies show similar drawings. Eg. : LG television receiver (rectangle with kickstand), Nokia Handset (rounded body with 2 buttons), etc. This is about the look of the device in general, not rounded corners specifically. Of course people have jumped to that conclusion because Apple devices on the outside are famously featureless (spartan in appearance) which in a technical drawing ends up looking like a rounded rectangle. This is why in the court case the jury did not rule exclusively based on the patent but was also shown a lot of the prototypes and design documents.

That has fuck-all to do with rounded corners. HTC (D617793) and Samsung (D641018) have similar patents to protect the look of their devices, as do most companies.

That has fuck-all to do with rounded corners. HTC (D617793) and Samsung (D641018) have similar patents to protect the look of their devices, as do most companies.

That doesn't mention "rounded corners" anywhere, that's the talking point the Andoid camp has turned it into. In fact you may want to scroll down that patent and look at the "referenced list" to see which companies registered patents similar to that one.

Personally I would prefer to be driving the Fiat 500 in any case, but it really has nothing to do with potential accidents :D

Especially the Fiat 500 Abarth. :)

I believe this is the patent in question here:

http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false

there is no mention of icons, swiping, glass, or boarders. it is simply a patent on a electronic device that looks like a pad. i can not conceive as to how this was given a patent

On a technical basis, Linux improvements have grown leaps and bound beyond Apple's, which are based on BSD. In other words, while we really are comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended), the Linux ecosystem is an entirely different codebase than Apple's private fork of BSD.

One boring paragraph follows, then there's the part where I say Miguel is an ass and nobody in neither the Linux camp nor the Apple camp respects him.

The Linux Desktop is not one monolithic project. Instead it's a smorgasbord of choices. Gnome, KDE, XFCE, just plain X, IceWM, and many many many more. Each have their teams of coders who work on the X server, the Window Manager, the Display Manager, the interactions, overall themes, and lots of other factors that make each Linux desktop look unique. A simple KDE interface can resemble Win95 if you want it to. A Gnome3 desktop can resemble nothing useful if you want it to. Raw X11 can resemble SunOS 4 if you want it to. You can change these from minute to minute to figure out what works best FOR YOU. That's the power of the Linux Desktop. Its thousands of developers working on hundreds of projects allow YOU to figure out how YOU want to see the system. Apple, in contrast, has dozens of developers working on the desktop. Your choice is exactly what they decide. If you like it, then congratulations, you win. If you don't, you're one of the hundreds of thousands ex-Apple users now using Linux.

Miguel De Icaza has a record of opening his mouth and letting his personal opinion that contradicts fact and reason spew forth. This is no different. The man's record speaks for itself. https://www.google.com/search?q=miguel+de+icaza+traitor . I have no hard evidence that he's the antichrist, as some have claimed, and that's not germaine. WHAT IS is that HE IS BIASED and ADMITTEDLY SO when he says something you should remember this isn't your grandfather patting you on the back and saying "Apple killed the linux desktop because they are so good"... it's Miguel "Liar liar pants on fire whose paying for my opinion today I've sold out the Linux community before and I'm doing it again" De Icaza saying it. BTW, "De Icaza" is Spanish for "full of XXXX."

E

Maybe I'm blind, but I couldn't find this thing's latitude/longitude location, anywhere. I tracked it down using some of the pictures on the guy's website.

I found that it is located at: 35.313724 N and 84.977574 W

See this video with an attempted ranking.

About its purpose in Judaism, here's what Maimonides wrote:

"[W]ith regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [...] How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? [...] The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. [...] The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

The words of Kellogg, the man behind much of its popularization in the US:

"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

Almost, but not quite...

Geekoid, from the way you argue I'm going to guess you're a circumcision fetishist.
http://www.circleaks.org/

No major health organisation (not even in Israel) recommends infant circumcision and the AAP has been criticised around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut?newsfeed=true
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

In the past the AAP has been deeply influenced by circumcision fetishists such as Edgar Schoen. He was chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics task force on circumcision that published a report in 1989 recommending infant circumcision. He was not involved in 1999 when the policy position was reversed. It would appear the fetishists are back in though.

Most people don't even know what circumcision is so, what is circumcision?
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Lets have a look at some critical analysis of the African RCT's.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
http://www.circinfo.org/africa.html

I suggest everyone pay close attention to the bit in the first page about men who were lost from study and bear in mind that their HIV status is unknown. If the RCT's have any value at all we would see benefits in the real world. Just looking at developed Western nations, Europe has the lowest rate of MGM while the USA has the highest. The USA also has the highest rate of HIV infection.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Where is the benefit in the real world?

The reality is that the RCT's were not about combating HIV in Africa or anywhere, it is all about creating bogus 'scientific' evidence to bolster the practice of infant circumcision in the USA. Doctors can make a tidy extra income from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html

cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies purchase amputated foreskins and use then in the production of various products:
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

You claim it's a lie that babies die from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Now let's look at a timeline of the miraculous claims that have been made for circumcision since the puritans introduced it to America to prevent masturbation.
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

If circumcision is so beneficial, why has it been necessary to make so many false claims about it? The current claims of HIV protection are just a rehash of the claims in 1855 and 1949 that it protects against Syphilis.

You also arrogantly claim there are no complications in later life. I am middle aged, I was mutilated as a baby and I now find that I have so little sensitivity that I can't maintain an erection during intercourse. Most of the time I can't even feel if I am inside a woman. It has nothing to do with health or lifestyle factors. I swim long distance ocean races a

Yup.

Iceland is an interesting country...

"[W]ith regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [] How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? [] The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

http://books.google.com/books?id=SF6fbjNe0yYC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=%22decrease+in+sexual+intercourse+and+a+weakening+of+the+organ+in+question%22

I had copy-and-paste on mobile devices before there even WAS an iPad.

I had copy and paste on my Newton, but that had a stylus. On what touch-only device without a stylus were you copying and pasting? The market has chosen, and stylus fans like us have been outvoted.

As for pixel editing, I can't even do that on a DESKTOP without blowing the screen up 800% or so

In GIMP on my 10" laptop, I can generally manage 600% with the pencil tool, or 300% when I'm using rectangle tools to move things around. But it's still nowhere near the 3200% or more that I need to consistently hit the right pixel in the Pixel Art app for Android on my Nexus 7 tablet.

Although a stylus beats "finger painting" for me.

Which is exactly my point: In my experience, even a mouse beats finger painting. Almost none of the current mobile touch screen devices include a stylus except for the Nintendo 3DS, and Nintendo's developer qualifications are far more selective than even Apple's.

These guys are so all over the map, it's amazing. Just like this post. Is anybody actually steering this ship? The only things that outnumber the silly (for the most part) bullet points of new features for each new VMware release, are the times they change the frickin' product names and the details of their licensing. It's like business via improvisation with these guys. Just random shit left and right. And their web site? Holy crap, I think they need more products.... my eyes just glaze over. It is nicely set up, with pop up menus, but damn, just the sheer number of Products/Solutions... overwhelming really.

I guess you can't blame them though; they need to diversify as their core products become commoditized and commonplace if they wish to stay relevant. More on that below. They just seem unfocussed, throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, almost. Sort of like playing the lottery.

They need a new killer app, plain and simple. And it needs to have a mid-long term strategy and laser focus. I have no idea what that could be.

One thing that's interested me is the virtual desktop angle. It seems like it's been slow on the uptake for reasons such as the cost of the terminal was no different than a PC, plus you also need the back end servers and storage. So really, your costs would increase; why bother? But with the proliferation of cheap ARM/Android devices, it's only a matter of time before there's a $75 palm sized device, with just the right feature set, to act as the terminal: USB for mouse/kbd; HDMI for display, Ethernet, quad A9 clocked up, running a lightweight Linux or Android hosting a VNC/RDP session. These devices already exist, but they're just too slow at this price point at this time. See the Mk802 for reference. The only problem with that device, is it is pretty anemic. Single core A10@1Ghz/1GB DDR2/3; not quite there yet, but still a fun toy. If it had twice the cores and clocks, we'd be talking an almost disposable desktop replacement; just keep your current KVM setup. So another 18 months we should have that power at that price point; if there's a viable open source virtualization environment sporting live vmotion that's a snap to configure, VMware's ESXi/vSphere/VDI goose is cooked.

One thing they could do to make some sure fire bucks for a couple of years at least, and to get their VDI platform standardized, would be to have the aforementioned devices manufactured in quantity to hit a below $99 price point, bundle that with their VDI crap, and get some interest generated. Once the desktop can be replaced with a throw away device, things get very interesting. And so what, you don't get the early adopter tax anymore and in order to generate interest by keeping the device cost low (subsidizing it almost I guess), you forgo that bit of profit on the hardware. But you license a ton more software for a year or two before this setup, too, becomes commonplace & easy to replace with free software.

The Thrill is Gone

To expand on my earlier rambling, what were their core products? GSX Server, then ESX, then ESXi-vSphere combo. These things once seemed almost magical, but now we completely take them for granted. The engines of these products, their hypervisor, have become commodities. The focus has left the hypervisor, though improvements still abound. But hell, they give it away now. The special sauce is vCenter, and everyone's favorite trick: live migration. That right there is really 90% of the magic,and the reason we gladly hand over 5 figures for licensing; the rest is just gravy. The minute there is a free, reliable, easy to set up environment that supports Xen or KVM and live migration, the jig is up on the vCenter special sauce and that cash cow is dry. I give it a year or two. I get there's a lot more to it than just live migration. For instance: storage vmotion. Great trick, being able to live-migrate the VMs disk store; realy realy cool to migrate from the old array to the new one wit

4.3L / 100km is quite a common figure these days, for example http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se

I take something like this on this bus: http://www.walmart.com/ip/2-Wheel-Folding-Shopping-Cart-w-Folding-Shelf-Silver/10929354

Or a trailer like this for my bike: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=4y7&channel=fs&q=bike+trailer&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1280&bih=787&noj=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=2622355757712821004&sa=X&ei=hxs9UIO2NKfs0gHesoD4Ag&ved=0CKgBEPMCMAg

Or walk with a wagon like this: http://www.sears.com/tricam-industries-steel-garden-cart/p-07164406000P

50MPG on a 'Busa and 75MPG on a Ninja 650? Did you two break your right wrists or something? :P

I regularly get only low to mid 40's on my DL650 (not nearly as quick as either a 'Busa or a Ninja), and I have never seen higher than 60 MPG (and that, only once). Maybe it's the saddle bags, the crashbars, and/or the 80/20 dual-sport tires? Regardless, that's pretty awesome fuel consumption :thumb_up:

They want captive audiences. Maybe I had an advantage seeing through the nonsense after spending so much time in Texas.

When oil prices are high, the oil executives chant "Free Market! Laissez-faire!" When oil prices drop, they demand the government step in to protect their profits, claiming that the government had a duty to protect national infrastructure from the vagaries of the market, that it would be wrong for the government to "Free-market them to death." (Good grief, how I miss Molly Ivins.)

The people in charge in this country believe in nothing but their own bank accounts, and will only wrap themselves in a flag or an ideology when it suits their purposes. This is much to the sorrow of Tea Party/Ron Paul supporters who just fell victim to the rule change that allows Mitt Romney to replace their grass-roots delegates with his wealthiest campaign supporters.

I suppose you can't charge $xxx/hr as a consultant or book author merely by telling the boss to set up something like a medieval blacksmithing guild, gotta come up with some new twist on the old story.

Actually, writing about such an approach would likely sell like hot-cakes. Repackaging an old idea in new marketing is an age-old formula that works surprisingly well. (See recent references to Caveman diet) Plus, the time is ripe for the next fad to replace pair-programming.

Apple provides PC desktops/laptops too, which allow you to do anything you like. They will continue to do so.

...and if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, your life will improve.

What will probably happen is that by 2015, Apple will have locked down all of their systems. User-programmable computers will be available from Apple at astoundingly high cost (because they will only be high end workstations) and should the user distribute a program Apple disapproves of, their license to use Apple's OS will be revoked and the OS will be remotely deactivated. Apple's product strategy is about control; what makes you think they will continue to make user-controlled computers once they have phased in a system to retain such control?

In fact even on mobile platforms Apple does not eliminate choice, they could shut down jailbreaking if they really wanted (or make it way harder than it is) - they choose not to.

They chose not to because of the outcry:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=apple+bricks+jailbroken+iphones&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

If they were uninterested in that option, why did they make jailbreaking harder than plugging the phone into a computer and entering some commands in a terminal? Companies do not typically patent techniques of doing things they consider to be out of the question.

Before Apple introduced the "App Stores" to the world at large (and I know there were plenty around before, just not as widely known) the users only had a choice of what was basically a wide-open system where apps just came from anywhere.

No, before Apple introduced the "App Store," you had these:

1. Timesharing computation utilities, that allowed users to rent time on a computer to run whatever software the utility did not ban.
2. Video game systems that would only run programs that had been digitally signed by the manufacturer.
3. Cable and satellite TV receivers that were designed to only run manufacturer-approved firmware.
4. Word processor computers that could perform a few pre-installed tasks.
5. Thousands of other computers that people have come to depend on, but which are designed to thwart any sort of hacking, modification, programming, etc.

Apple just saw this sort of thing and said, "Well if it works for mainframes, video game consoles, and printer catridges, we can make it work for tablet computers (and maybe even laptops)!" The user's choices are now "curated" by Apple, just like their choices were previous "curated" by Nintendo, IBM, or Xerox.

Lots of freedom, but too much freedom for a non-technical user to handle easily - hence a world of viruses and malware that arose as a result.

Yet despite that problem, it was also a world that had governments terrified of their citizens, a world which exposed scientology, a world that made Wikileaks possible, a world that allows Chinese and Iranian citizens to read banned material, a world that resulted in one new innovation after another. Once you start telling people that they cannot run unapproved software, you wind up here:

http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/

This is not about choice or about security, it is about freedom -- freedom is inconvenient, which IBM knew in the 70s when Apple was actually giving people freedom. If Apple had any interest in respecting its users' freedom, they would have made a standardized, not-hard-for-technical-users method of removing the restrictions. Apple has become the new IBM: they want to make money on computation, and they have lost whatever respect they might have had for the users of their systems.

I do find it amusing, though, how this query, https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hurricane%20isaac, doesn't return Google's crisis site.

Search giants, indeed ;)

Ford has a step on their tailgate that I have not seen on any Chevy.

It is a nice step and is something I would use.

I would think that Chevy would want to implement that too, for their customers.

Why haven't they? Could it be that it is patented?

Yes, yes it is.

If you could stop switching topics for three seconds, it might help. We were talking about Motorola, not android. Google is liable for Motorola, period.

Putting in a separate management structure has exactly "0" to do with legal liability. You are pulling this out of your ass.

It's not just a separate management structure. Motorola still legally exists as it's own entity and company. Google owns the majority of shares, but Motorola is still a separate company. You already admitted they have their own CEO, and that's because legally they are distinct.

Motorola is a subsidiary of Google and is therefore legally distinct. It's basically a shell company which should not be a mind boggling concept, companies do this all the time to legally protect themselves.

Except that's not what google did. Other than that, great use of wikipedia. If you took three seconds to look at a balance sheet, you'd see that google includes Motorola's assest and liabilities under it's own umbrella, because it isn't operating it as a separate corporate entity. It isn't on the stock market because it no longer operates as a separate entity:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=MMI

Huh? Stock market doesn't mean squat for legal standing. That just means Motorola is privately held.

Motorola still exists as an LLC owned by Google. What is an LLC? A limited liability company. An LLC means the owners (Google) are not necessarily liable for anything the company does. LLCs do not have to be listed on the stock market (as if that was at all a reasonable argument.)

http://www.motorola.com/us/consumers/home

Look at the title on their homepage. They can only say "Motorola Mobility LLC. USA" if they've actually filed as an LLC in the US. Again, that does not mean they aren't owned by Google. That just means Google, to the US government, has declared that they are a separate organization and that the owner, Google, is not libable for anything they do.

It's in the NAME OF THE COMPANY that Google isn't liable. I'm not sure how much bigger of a cluestick you need to get. Even though it's not publicly traded and privately held, it's still held as a separate company. Because they're not public, Google can put them on any balance sheet they want, but that doesn't change they're not LEGALLY part of Google.

What is this, the Chewbacca defense?

Under the terms of Google's licensing, Android is supplied without legal indemnification. That means Google has transferred all legal liability to the device makers. That basically means Google is saying "We wrote this code, we don't know if it violates any patents, but if it does, it's your problem, not ours."

Just because you say Google is liable, that doesn't make it so. Google's lawyers would disagree with that, and Google has already moved to protect themselves.

If you could stop switching topics for three seconds, it might help. We were talking about Motorola, not android. Google is liable for Motorola, period.

They're not my words, they're Google's. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57438986-94/google-officially-closes-$12.5-billion-motorola-mobility-deal/ "Google has made it clear that Motorola will operate independently from its own operation"

I believe those words are being pulled out of someone's ass (no way Google isn't telling Moto what to do), but it's not my ass they're being pulled out of.

Putting in a separate management structure has exactly "0" to do with legal liability. You are pulling this out of your ass.

Preaching to the choir, but LEGALLY (note the LEGALLY) Motorola is still a separate organization and Google is not necessary liable for their actions. Much like if you owned a business, people could only sue the business, not you directly. It's a common business strategy to protect one's self from legal liability. Remember, legally corporations are people, and Motorola, as long as it exists as a separate company, is still a separate "person".

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

Except that's not what google did. Other than that, great use of wikipedia. If you took three seconds to look at a balance sheet, you'd see that google includes Motorola's assest and liabilities under it's own umbrella, because it isn't operating it as a separate corporate entity. It isn't on the stock market because it no longer operates as a separate entity:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=MMI
It is running as a business unit of google inc with an independent management structure. But don't let those pesky little facts get in the way of the story you've fabricated based on a quote in a cnet article.
http://investor.google.com/earnings/2012/Q2_google_earnings.html

What is this, the Chewbacca defense?

Under the terms of Google's licensing, Android is supplied without legal indemnification. That means Google has transferred all legal liability to the device makers. That basically means Google is saying "We wrote this code, we don't know if it violates any patents, but if it does, it's your problem, not ours."

Just because you say Google is liable, that doesn't make it so. Google's lawyers would disagree with that, and Google has already moved to protect themselves.

If you could stop switching topics for three seconds, it might help. We were talking about Motorola, not android. Google is liable for Motorola, period.

They're not my words, they're Google's. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57438986-94/google-officially-closes-$12.5-billion-motorola-mobility-deal/ "Google has made it clear that Motorola will operate independently from its own operation"

I believe those words are being pulled out of someone's ass (no way Google isn't telling Moto what to do), but it's not my ass they're being pulled out of.

Putting in a separate management structure has exactly "0" to do with legal liability. You are pulling this out of your ass.

Preaching to the choir, but LEGALLY (note the LEGALLY) Motorola is still a separate organization and Google is not necessary liable for their actions. Much like if you owned a business, people could only sue the business, not you directly. It's a common business strategy to protect one's self from legal liability. Remember, legally corporations are people, and Motorola, as long as it exists as a separate company, is still a separate "person".

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

Except that's not what google did. Other than that, great use of wikipedia. If you took three seconds to look at a balance sheet, you'd see that google includes Motorola's assest and liabilities under it's own umbrella, because it isn't operating it as a separate corporate entity. It isn't on the stock market because it no longer operates as a separate entity:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=MMI
It is running as a business unit of google inc with an independent management structure. But don't let those pesky little facts get in the way of the story you've fabricated based on a quote in a cnet article.
http://investor.google.com/earnings/2012/Q2_google_earnings.html

On the other hand, if you look at the ice volume, and extend that line down, it's not very far anymore. https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1343965558784/home/piomas/piomas-trnd6.png Extend is tricky, because you can have a large extend made from a big layer of really thin ice. The thin ice will melt rather quickly, and in addition to melting in-situ, thin ice will also break into small pieces and be carried away by ocean currents or wind to warmer water.

Google doesn't sell android? That's weird because I bought a phone directly from them.

http://www.google.com/nexus/#/

Last I checked, the back of my Galaxy Nexus said it was made by Samsung, not Google. That would make Google a reseller and only legally liable if they violated an injunction.

Oh look...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/05/google-confirms-galaxy-nexus-was-pulled-from-play-store-due-to-i/

There's more than one way to implement pinch-to-zoom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s

Fast forward to 2:22: Pinch to zoom as demonstrated by Sony back in 2001; six years before Apple applied for the 7864163 patent.

As this apparently doesn't qualify as prior art; Apple can't claim infringement either.

So specific implementation details must matter. The general idea cannot be what Apple claims ownership of. The idea has been around for a long long time (Minority Report from back in 2002 being yet another example) and hardly qualifies as novel.

Square corners is nothing. That is a design patent, and it's easy to work around (by making a device that doesn't look too much like Apple's, Samsung did so themselves with the Infuse 4G. It's not hard to work around).

The huge problem here is the multi-touch patents Apple has. Consider that every modern smartphone uses multi-touch. Then consider the alternatives. You want to zoom in but can't use multi-touch, what are you going to do? Double-tap the screen? Nope, Apple has that patented too. (Here is one multi-touch patent, they have several). Mult-touch patents could seriously cause problems for the rest of the world. Apple might license them at $30-$50 per handset, if they license them at all.

Foreign deployments are not legitimate. We need the Coast Guard and the army. The nuclear sub fleet and their nuclear deterrent can be transferred to the coast guard, and the army focuses on maintenance of the land based nuclear deterrent, with the air force folded in there as well. Security of shipping lanes can be handled by a renewed merchant marine (ie allow merchant ships to be armed to whatever extent they like).

You don't need a big standing army when you have nukes. With no big armies anywhere, wars of all descriptions become less likely. A small special forces would be enough to deal with non-state threats.

You need a military to absorb the % of the aggressive young male population and kill some of that off, and develop some discipline and maturity in the survivors. (Alligator control is just not big enough to take all of them). Kind a Kipling-esque view and a bit curmudgeonly, but fits the observed facts much better than we need to spend $$$ and $$$$ and $$$$$ for "national defense".

Dropbox adds a much better user identification method, for the sake of privacy.
As the second factor is an SMS, and because in all countries the law requires the mobile operator to be able to identify at any time who's the person using a certain SIM.
Identification of a user based on her/his email address is trivially uneffective.
Better security is a tiny side effect. Any techie of the VAS team at the mobile operator would be able to circumvent that method. As well as law enforcement men in black.
Really better security would be a cryptographic certificate locally protected by a password, a-la SSH.
Ah!

P.S.
Google is already willing to know your mobile phone number since long now.

After much scrutiny of the tapes NASA concluded that the word "a" was not said at all.

Not only incorrect on all counts, you obviously just made up everything you just claimed. The scrutiny of the transmission supports Armstrong's claims:

"The 'a' was intended," Armstrong said. "I thought I said it. I can't hear it when I listen on the radio reception here on Earth, so I'll be happy if you just put it in parentheses."

Although no one in the world heard the "'a," some research backs Armstrong.

In 2006, a computer analysis found evidence that Armstrong said what he said he said.

Peter Shann Ford, an Australian computer programmer, ran a software analysis looking at sound waves and found a wave that would have been the missing "a." It lasted 35 milliseconds, much too quick to be heard. The Smithsonian's space curator, Roger Launius, looked at the evidence and found it convincing.

NASA has also stood by its moon man.

"If Neil Armstrong says there was an 'a,' then as far as we're concerned, there was 'a,'" NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said shortly before the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission.

...

And in all honesty, Mr. Armstrong kinda' blew it by not reciting his prepared speech exactly right, and it must have bothered him enough that he attempted to hide his mistake... It's kind of funny to learn that this is what made him sweat a little bit.

You deserve to be punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin.

Google doesn't sell android? That's weird because I bought a phone directly from them.

http://www.google.com/nexus/#/

Google makes the product. The product is running the Android OS. You arent paying for the OS, but the product itself. There's a difference.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.avatron.airdisplay&hl=en

Funny how iPhone is quickly losing its apps advantage.

At the end of this year, apparently. The article missed out both the product name and any links to content from from this decade, but once you know it's called the Tata MiniCat, then google finds quite a few slightly less vapourish links.

If your country has a rickshaw[1], it can have the airpod.

Both have similar cons; noisy death traps[2] with limited speed, range and capacity. Yet if somehow the rickshaws are in business, they the air car can make sense too[*]. Infact I would actually prefer a rickshaw that runs on air, since it wouldn't pollute everywhere it went!

If Tata will have any sense, the first thing they will do is strip that car of it's european body and crap that system into a typical indian rickshaw, and market it (and price it!) as *that*. Fuel points will prop up on their own (no really, where there is an opportunity to earn or save a rupee, there are a bazillion of us South Asians willing to take advantage of it).

[*]: That's assuming the achievable speed range and capacity are at least 80% of those advertised in the video, I wouldn't blame them for *some* exaggeration in quoting the maximum achievable range, but it should at least match the autorickshaw, which already has modest specs. Also, we don't fear high pressure gas tanks, we routinely ride those around here in the form of CNG car tanks (albeit at 200 bar, IIRC) so it's match made in heaven as far as I am concerned. :P

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_rickshaw

[2]: Just look at them:
http://images.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=679&q=auto+rickshaw&oq=auto+rickshaw&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2380.8441.0.9500.13.9.0.4.4.0.277.1480.4j1j4.9.0...0.0...1ac.MVX6QrmUXGA

Google doesn't sell android? That's weird because I bought a phone directly from them.

http://www.google.com/nexus/#/

That's the way it usually works. You get a dramatic year followed by more normal years but a bit lower than the previous normal years. Then you get another dramatic year. Meanwhile on average it just keeps going downhill.

If you're interested in graphs here's a bunch more.

If you read response #4 of this update from Real Climate, you will see that the National Snow and Ice Data Centre hasn't called the record low yet (as of 26 Aug 2012 at 12:04 PM), since they use 5-day moving averages on their graphs. The graph referred to by the realclimate.org update and I think in the OP is based on daily data. The response is from Walt Meier of the NSIDC. I'll quote it here:

These are daily values, not the 5-day average, which is not quite at a record yet. Using a 5-day average removes some of the noise due to weather and other effects that cause small errors in the daily values. Thus the 5-day estimate is a more robust measure of sea ice changes. We will make an announcement on our web site when we have passed the current record: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Walt Meier

NSIDC

I think however that there are other data series that do agree that the record has been broken, even with 5-day averages. Here is my favourite data compilation for Arctic Sea Ice. It contains many different graphs from different sources. Taken together, the data paints a disturbing picture.

There are so many facts wrongs on this that it looks like you are making things up to supprot a point (a point which I agree with).
Beria was not arrested on molestation charges. He was arrested on charges of treason, counter-revolutionary activities and terrorism (for his role in the purges).
"Beria died in prison 'attempting to escape',". No. He was sentenced to death and was executed by a firing squad.
" the date unknown.". Again, no. The execution was on 12/23/1953.
BTW, In his trial, he was accused to allegations of rape and sex crimes. But that seems to be mainly because it was true and pretty well documented (unlike the treason charges)