Slashdot Mirror

See!? 2GB / 2 days = 12.13 kB/s. Netflix is barely better than dial-up!

Google is effectively paying an amount roughly equal to their 2010 profits.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Google agreed to pay $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility. Google's 2010 net income was $8.5 billion. Unlike you I didn't pull that figure out of my ass. That's according to Google's own financial statement.

According to the same statement their 2009 net income was $6.5 billion, so they paid nearly two years profit for MMI. Coupled with the facts that the $12.5 billion price represent a 60% premium over MMI's share price, and that Google agreed to pay a penalty of $2.5 billion if the deal falls through for whatever reason, this certainly smacks of desperation on Google's part.

And the deal could very well fall through. It's still subject to regulatory approval, and with Google being investigated worldwide, this is certain to ratchet up the scrutiny. And then there's good ol' Microsoft. What if they decided to play spoiler and offer more for MMI? I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

As you note, it's barely a dent for google. Google will make almost as much income in the time it takes for the deal to close, or half as much at least.

Google paid a net $9 billion for MMI (12 billion - 3 billion in cash)

Google only made 8.5 billion last year.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GOOG&fstype=ii

They're on a roll. Don't distract them with facts.

The fact that Google is buying Motorola Mobility is interesting itself of course, but the reportage is interesting too. It's getting a ton of press, almost all of it gloom and doom. BusinessInsider goes on about some of the major properties in the deal, but misses some major ones like factories around the world, an ARM Architectural license, and other things.

I don't think this is a bad deal for anybody involved. Sure, MMI isn't an earnings star right now - but they just finished a painful reorg and are on track to do very well now that it's over. Even at their worst they weren't burning WP7 marketing kinds of money. Their share has been declining, but they still have more of the market than WP7 does. Google gets some more patents for their growing defensive arsenal, which means the rest of us get to keep getting ever-better shiny Android widgets. Google's Android partners get a tough defender - and now it looks likely they'll be able to assemble a patent pool terrifying in extent. Moto might even stop with that Blur and locked bootloader nonsense. Moto doesn't get carved up and eaten by another phone vendor. The US factories don't close. There's lots to be happy about.

As you note, it's barely a dent for google. Google will make almost as much income in the time it takes for the deal to close, or half as much at least. People were already complaining Google was hoarding cash. MMI will probably spin off some money too.

So why the panic? I suppose it's disruptive. On Friday a lot of folks thought they had a plan to kill Android. Now they're going to have to go back to the drawing board. People don't like too much change.

They're on a roll. Don't distract them with facts.

The fact that Google is buying Motorola Mobility is interesting itself of course, but the reportage is interesting too. It's getting a ton of press, almost all of it gloom and doom. BusinessInsider goes on about some of the major properties in the deal, but misses some major ones like factories around the world, an ARM Architectural license, and other things.

I don't think this is a bad deal for anybody involved. Sure, MMI isn't an earnings star right now - but they just finished a painful reorg and are on track to do very well now that it's over. Even at their worst they weren't burning WP7 marketing kinds of money. Their share has been declining, but they still have more of the market than WP7 does. Google gets some more patents for their growing defensive arsenal, which means the rest of us get to keep getting ever-better shiny Android widgets. Google's Android partners get a tough defender - and now it looks likely they'll be able to assemble a patent pool terrifying in extent. Moto might even stop with that Blur and locked bootloader nonsense. Moto doesn't get carved up and eaten by another phone vendor. The US factories don't close. There's lots to be happy about.

As you note, it's barely a dent for google. Google will make almost as much income in the time it takes for the deal to close, or half as much at least. People were already complaining Google was hoarding cash. MMI will probably spin off some money too.

So why the panic? I suppose it's disruptive. On Friday a lot of folks thought they had a plan to kill Android. Now they're going to have to go back to the drawing board. People don't like too much change.

I would rather you do the legwork. I was trying to prompt you.

As of the publishing of Marlinspike's article Bob Parsons was majority shareholder. It's his company. He's since sold most of the company off -- he's now under 50% -- but he's still the biggest shareholder.

Bob Parsons started the company, he owned the company, he owns the biggest chunk of the company now, his ethics continue to be highly influential. The company's history of controversy shows his influence, either directly or by setting a tone for behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godaddy.com#Controversies Have you heard about Bob Parson's stance on torture?

In short, the quality of GoDaddy is related to the quality of Bob Parsons.

Why does the summary say "then at SuSE"? Greg's still working for SUSE/Novell as a Linux kernel developer fellow right?

If you think about it, it's obvious that this is great for all OEMs...

http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/

MS must be shitting bricks right now, cause they realize that they have to compete by making a legitimately good product rather than fighting with stupid lawsuits. OEMs know this and they are jumping for joy that they might now be able to kill the troll.

I think the original problem is that you start out being reminded of the look and feel suit against "Windows" and end up dodging and focusing on HP.

As I said before: Apple sued both HP and Microsoft, the screenshot I am talking about was Windows with HP New Wave running, and Apple had used the customization features of New Wave to make the screenshot look more like a Mac.

Since that is what I said in the first place, how is this "dodging" or "shifting topics"?

And hey look, I tried a Google search and this time hit on the correct search words to find it. Here is a Google Books scan of the InfoWorld computer magazine. See page 5, under the heading "Windows Are Common, But Their Implementations Vary". There is a picture of the black-and-white New Wave screenshot submitted by Apple, and another picture of the default colors for HP New Wave.

Windows Are Common, But Their Implementations Vary

So, I trust that I have adequately explained to you what HP has to do with the topic at hand? Just as a refresher, in case you forgot: Apple supplied a screenshot of HP New Wave running on top of Microsoft Windows as part of its lawsuit against both Microsoft and HP.

If Microsoft is doctoring the end product to hide Apple tech, trying to un-doctor the end-product is not unreasonable.

I disagree. You can use the word "un-doctor" but it is still dishonest doctoring of evidence. It was stupid, too, because there was no way they were going to get by with that without a challenge, and it just made Apple look bad.

Apple was sort-of justified in grasping at straws

No. Doctoring evidence is not justified at any time.

Funny those same straws turn into logs these days for non-practicing entities, but that's another insanity.

Dude, I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. If the idea is important, perhaps you should rephrase it.

steveha

Some very good analysis and thinking. I second the post about Google's Native-Client technology. The API is here.

I kind of agree. Maybe the next step for Nintendo and Sony should either be: 1) Open the platform for indie development and offer an online store where people can submit games (similar to Xbox live games)

Agreed. Apple has actually made a mistake in one department: the latest generation iPod Touch only has 256mb RAM compared to the iPhone 4's 512mb RAM. This makes many games that are compatible with the iPhone 4 not compatible with the latest iPod Touch. Most parents won't buy their children iPhones due to the expensive monthly data plans but a ~$200 iPod Touch is no problem, but since they can't play the latest games it's no good. Why Apple did this is beyond me but it locks out many potential buyers.

But you're right about one thing: any gaming device, console or portable, better have a well-stocked app store if they want to survive. They better beg, borrow or steal to get developers to make thousands of games if they want to compete with Apple. Apple's App Store might not have the best quality games or the latest 3D hardware but they have millions of paying customers and those millions of customers translate into millions of dollars for developers. Raise your hand if you want millions of dollars. I thought so, so what does Nintendo have? Do they have millions of customers using their Wii Shop Channel? Where's the Wii Shop Channel millionaires? There's plenty of App Store millionaires, and that's what draws developers. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft need to turn average joe game programmers into millionaires in a hurry if they want to survive against Apple. Honestly, I think they're SOL. App Store has been around for 3 years and in that time Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft just looked at it with a blank stare while their sales have suffered while Apple gathered 200 million iOS users downloading over 15 billion apps and paying developers $2.5 billion dollars. How many more years are they gonna wait? Really disappointed, it's like they saw the tidal wave coming and they sat in shock rather than move out of the way.

I kind of agree. Maybe the next step for Nintendo and Sony should either be: 1) Open the platform for indie development and offer an online store where people can submit games (similar to Xbox live games)

Agreed. Apple has actually made a mistake in one department: the latest generation iPod Touch only has 256mb RAM compared to the iPhone 4's 512mb RAM. This makes many games that are compatible with the iPhone 4 not compatible with the latest iPod Touch. Most parents won't buy their children iPhones due to the expensive monthly data plans but a ~$200 iPod Touch is no problem, but since they can't play the latest games it's no good. Why Apple did this is beyond me but it locks out many potential buyers.

But you're right about one thing: any gaming device, console or portable, better have a well-stocked app store if they want to survive. They better beg, borrow or steal to get developers to make thousands of games if they want to compete with Apple. Apple's App Store might not have the best quality games or the latest 3D hardware but they have millions of paying customers and those millions of customers translate into millions of dollars for developers. Raise your hand if you want millions of dollars. I thought so, so what does Nintendo have? Do they have millions of customers using their Wii Shop Channel? Where's the Wii Shop Channel millionaires? There's plenty of App Store millionaires, and that's what draws developers. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft need to turn average joe game programmers into millionaires in a hurry if they want to survive against Apple. Honestly, I think they're SOL. App Store has been around for 3 years and in that time Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft just looked at it with a blank stare while their sales have suffered while Apple gathered 200 million iOS users downloading over 15 billion apps and paying developers $2.5 billion dollars. How many more years are they gonna wait? Really disappointed, it's like they saw the tidal wave coming and they sat in shock rather than move out of the way.

It's called the dancing bunnies problem

http://www.google.com/search?q=dancing+bunnies+problem

Because the US has extensive military operations in Afghanistan. The easiest way to get to Afghanistan is to cross over/through Pakistan. Without cooperation from Pakistan, US operations in Afghanistan would be severely hampered.

They need to stop hiring the scum of the earth to uphold the law, but don't let rampant cynicism get the best of you.

It's not cynicism. It's established hiring policy. I have a friend who tells me she was refused a job in law enforcement for scoring too high on an intelligence test, so it would seem that the practice continues.

Feel free to disregard my anecdotal evidence; the link above shows at least one instance of the policy being legitimized by a court ruling.

Google's privacy policies have always been pretty upfront. They often present the policies in plain english instead of legalese, which is pretty rare.

If you're wondering about the specific services you use, look here: http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/

They sum it up in about 1 page for each one. Some link to the option to opt-out, I don't know how many of them do, I haven't looked at all of them.

Actually it is rather clear in US courts, there isn't a single court case I'm aware of that has ruled a program as a derivative work of a library it uses, there are plenty of them that have struck that down, however.

Does it make a difference that you didn't actually modify the source code to combine the original program into your larger work?

In copyright law, no, because the copied code might not be licensed for such redistribution, so long as that work can actually be copyrighted and is not strictly necessary as an integral part of the work (i.e. code for the purpose of stopping inter-operability instead of as a creative literary work, which is what computer code falls under).

Does merely linking to a program without any change to the original source code create a derivative work of that program?

No it does not, you can make a clean-room rewrite of logic that otherwise copies an API, and that does not qualify as a derivative work, see Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.. If you are allowed to distribute the linked library with the program is another matter (the GPL prohibits it, the LGPL allows it).

Where is the source code for honeycomb?

I haven't checked it out, but is this not it? A couple hits from the top of a Google search. The Cyanogenmod guys have had a version for many months.

I'll give you the lack of AdBlock+ in Chrome, however there is a suitable NoScript equivalent for Chrome, and I use it myself: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn

Oh irony.

First reviews of the addon: "it is crashing my tabs!", "really really broken after update" and "it is incompatible with Chrome 13!"

Welcome to the wonderful world of silent upgrades!

The Chrome add-on API is much more limited and as such doesn't need to change as frequently or as drastically.

It is, which is why there is still no proper equivalent of AdBlock Plus or NoScript in Chrome, and at the rate things are going there never will be.

Really? I have an adblock in Chrome and it works great -- https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom

Not sure what I am missing from the firefox version, but I see no ads so it works great as far as I am concerned.

I also found this adblock Plus http://adblockplus.org/en/chrome

Republicans?
I thought you just used music by musicians that don't like you and ignore them when they tell you to stop being an ass.

We've removed it from all of our marketing materials. We're removing it from the download button on the Website. We're removing it from how we talk to users about Firefox. We're ending version numbers because they're not meaningful to users (except in troubleshooting situations.)

I wonder ... should we also remove seat-belts from the cars? They are generally useless (except in troubleshooting situations).

I'll give you the lack of AdBlock+ in Chrome, however there is a suitable NoScript equivalent for Chrome, and I use it myself: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn

Works more or less like NoScript (at least from what I remember of NoScript, it's been a while.)

Tenba sells inserts. Other manufacturers might too. The problem I had with specialized camera + laptop bags was that sometimes I didn't want to bring the camera or the laptop. That resulted me in buying two bags - one for when I want just the laptop, another for when I want the camera+lenses (with or without laptop). The photo-centric design of many bags meant they frequently can't take a laptop, necessitating a third bag for camera+lenses with the laptop.

The insert lets me do it with just one bag. If I want the camera + lenses, I put in the insert. If I don't want them I remove the insert. Having my photo gear in the insert also makes it easy to switch between these two modes without having to move all my lenses one by one between bags. The size of the insert won't work for a pro, but I find it's enough to carry a 70-200, 28-70, one body, and a flash. If the bag I was using were bigger, I could probably squeeze in an extra big lens (put the flash outside but to the side of the insert - like I do the power adapter and cord for the laptop).

The insert also has the advantage of being extraordinarily cheap ($15-$30) compared to dedicated photo bags ($100+, for some reason when you put the word "photo" on something it triples or quadruples in price). And it gives you the flexibility to use whatever bag you like as long as it's big enough, instead of being limited to the dedicated laptop + photo bags that scream "valuable stuff inside!" to thieves.

You're saying all the stock traders of MMI are wrong, and Google is right, by paying a huge premium to buyout the whole company.

MMI have posting mostly losses for the past few quarters and years: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:MMI&fstype=ii

Google would be lucky just to keep their new division in the black. Particularly as Google doesn't seem to have much experience in making hardware. As for getting back that 12billion.... well, they won't sell enough handsets to do that, but they probably will be able to sell off the hardware divisions of Motorola -- but I'm betting that they won't be worth 12B.

TM

First, your use of the word "alarmists" and then a capitalized word next to it screams Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, etc. Just do a search on Google using only those two words "environmental+alarmists" and see what comes back. I call assure you it isn't a who's who representing the "fair and balanced" view.

http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+alarmists

Or you can try the "Green+Agenda" Google search. That comes back with some even more interesting search results for even more fringe web sites.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Green+Agenda

Truly pathetic really.

First, your use of the word "alarmists" and then a capitalized word next to it screams Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, etc. Just do a search on Google using only those two words "environmental+alarmists" and see what comes back. I call assure you it isn't a who's who representing the "fair and balanced" view.

http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+alarmists

Or you can try the "Green+Agenda" Google search. That comes back with some even more interesting search results for even more fringe web sites.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Green+Agenda

Truly pathetic really.

In Apple's case, the pirate flag was a metaphor. They're not really pirates. I mean, they're not The Crimson Permanent Assurance or something.

Firewood is a renewable resource. It just takes a lot of land to grow enough trees to heat a house, and there are more economical ways to use the fuel.

Geothermal should be good for some of the energy. Accelerating transfer of heat from the planet's core to the atmosphere will help radiate off that heat. If we need to, we can paint the planet white with airdrops of aluminum oxide. Algae fuels trap carbon temporarily. There are some other things we can do. Not that it matters.

There are almost 7 billion of us now (according to this 6,955,578,309 at this writing, 7 billion this year). 43 years ago it was half as many, and 55 years prior it was half of that. Continuing this trend, it was it was 1780 - about 230 years ago, or 120 years for another halving. Do you see where the steps get longer the further you go back? Some of the acceleration in growth rate is medicine, some is energy science, some is transportation. Science is killing us by allowing a yeast-growth law. If we had universal free power with perfect conversion, we'd find a way to get to 14 billion in 35 years and 28 billion in 60. Imagine that... 2071: some of my children are still alive and the world has 28 billion people in it. Yes, I know - the UN expects the accelerating growth trend of the last thousand years to suddenly reverse direction, much like the WP7 team expects their fortunes to turn around - for no discernable reason. I believe the UN estimates wrongly include many bilions of people starving to death, and I think we'll prevent that for the most part with humanitarian efforts, though of course many will die by famine where inserting food by force isn't feasible due to determined armed opposition.

By 2071 we'll be out of oil of course, having even tapped the arctic and antarctic reserves. We'll be digging out the last of the coal having doubled, redoubled and re-redoubled those efforts, and global climate will be at least 3C above present - which means British summers will be pleasant but the winters still intolerable, larger swaths of Africa and southern India will be uninhabitable but Frazier Island will be a destination resort. (Nonseq: that bay looks like a crater to me.) We'll have surrendered to gene mod crops and nuclear power, so vast swaths of the Earth will be unihabitable due to grey goo and nuclear meltdowns. Thermodynamics being what they are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will be irreversibly melting, but it will still be a long time before they do melt and raise the level of the sea and vanishing Florida beneath the waves. Ice is not a great thermoconductor, so outer layers of ice delay the eventual flood that will come. Plenty of time for folks to move inland. Of course if you do the math by then the US National Debt is $4 quadrillion at least, and some models escape to infinity which obviously can't happen (can it?)

The world had 1.5 billion people when my great-grandmother was born, and I knew her. My eldest grandson is two years old. If the current trend continues my youngest great-grandson will die amongst a crowd of over 200 billion humans. Assuming: my youngest daughter is 5 now, and will have a child at 35 as her mother did (2041), and that youngest grandchild will have a child at 35 (2076) also that brings us to 65 years hence, or 2076 born and 84 years of life (assumes a lack of medical advances) gives the year 2161 to naturally pass on. It would take several medical miracles to allow me to meet this great-grandchild, but those are expected. On the current trend 200 billion world population is a fairly conservative estimate for 2161. But of course the current trend can't continue unless the future brings something I don't know about.

I used to worry a lot about this stuff - but you know what? In the longer view these problems solve themselves. We're fortunate

You know... sabotage ? (EG)

The EULA for the free eBook converter now contains some extra stuff, such as:
"The source code of Hamster Free eBook Converter inherits GNU GPL 3.0 rights from Calibre. You may all operations with it permitted by law. GNU GPL 3.0 restrictions must be met. You will not use Hamster Free eBook Converter for illegal purposes. You will comply with all export laws. Hamster Free eBook Converter is licensed, not sold."
which looks like it was written hastily, and
"GNU GPL 3.0
Calibre source codes: http://code.google.com/p/calibre-ebook/downloads/list
Hamster Free eBook Converter source codes: http://ebook.hamstersoft.com/en/support
License GNU GPL 3.0: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html"
So, they've included the GPL in their license terms, and have published the source code for the eBook converter. Looks like yet another win for GPL.

The real question here is, 'How much did Microsoft pay for this predetermined study to be completed?'

Try this link

Hear! Hear! Most of my desktop backgrounds come www.nasa.gov's image gallery. The current one in use is titled "Sunrise over Mars", taken by one of the rovers.

BTW for the curious: I tried to find it on NASA's image gallery, and failed(was going to link to it). A Google image search for that title found it. :-) This is it, but not the higher resolution image I got from NASA's sight a few years ago.

That image blew my socks off! Wow! A picture from Mars I can relate to! I've seen many sunrises from good old planet Earth, but from another planet?!?!? It gives me goose bumps!

Speaking of which, I've been looking all over for a high resolution version of that beautiful image. Would you mind posting it somewhere to share? :)

Hear! Hear!
Most of my desktop backgrounds come www.nasa.gov's image gallery.
The current one in use is titled "Sunrise over Mars", taken by one of the rovers.

BTW for the curious:
I tried to find it on NASA's image gallery, and failed(was going to link to it).
A Google image search for that title found it. :-)
This is it, but not the higher resolution image I got from NASA's sight a few years ago.

That image blew my socks off! Wow! A picture from Mars I can relate to!
I've seen many sunrises from good old planet Earth, but from another planet?!?!?
It gives me goose bumps!

Even, its a feature. look what people did with phenom ii 955 black edition :

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4qi&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=phenom+955+overclocked+to+7.1+ghz&oq=phenom+955+overclocked+to+7.1+ghz&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3190l6170l0l6316l15l15l0l10l0l1l406l1003l1.2.1.0.1l5l0

some psychos overclocked the chip to 7.1 ghz as opposed to its core clock of 3.4 ghz.

intel shows its intelness. they knew people were overclocking left and right, and in the spirit of a corporation which has paid pc makers not to use their competitor, they are trying to siphon off money from customers.

so, they will soft-lock a cpu, while selling me HARDWARE, then sell me SOFTWARE to unlock their HARDWARE.

whores.

Intel has been doing that forever, from the 486SX, which just had a broken FPU

Some people here on Slashdot seem really upset about this software upgrade thing. But I was upset about the 487SX, and I still grimace when I think about it.

Before the 486, you had the 386 CPU chip, and the 387 FPU chip. A 386 motherboard would have a second socket for the FPU; probably the socket was empty when you bought a 386 system, but you could buy a 387 for a speed boost.

The 486 was the first Intel CPU with an integrated FPU. So, the 486SX was a way for Intel to sell a cheaper part, and to sell 486 chips whose FPU was defective. I get that. I'm cool with that.

The real 486 was called the "486DX". SX == no FPU, DX == FPU.

The 486SX and the 486DX were pin-compatible. If you wanted to upgrade a 486SX system, you could simply pull the 486SX out and pop in a 486DX.

But Intel tried to push a motherboard design where there were two sockets: the 486SX socket, and the 487SX socket. Instead of unplugging the 486SX and putting in a 486DX, you were supposed to leave the 486SX in place, and buy a 487SX, which was just a 486DX with an incompatible pinout (including one extra pin). You couldn't put a 487SX in a 486DX socket. When you put in a 487SX, the motherboard would disable the 486SX and it would just sit there, with the 487SX doing all the work, as it really was just a 486DX. (And an integrated FPU sharing cache with the rest of the CPU is better for performance.)

I found the whole 486SX/487SX thing to be breathtakingly obnoxious. It's one thing to provide multiple price points and find a way to sell CPUs with a defective FPU. It's quite another thing to engineer up a whole system that was cynically designed to lock up a perfectly good 486SX chip and trick a user into buying a special 487SX chip instead of just getting a 486 as an upgrade.

To make it even stupider, the 487SX cost more than a 486, because the 486 was being mass-produced. I found a Google Books scanned copy of InfoWorld that said the 487SX was 30% more expensive than an equivalent 486 chip! ($799 vs. $588 for a 25 MHz part) And a 25 MHz 486SX must have cost $258 because the cost of leaving the 486SX in place and adding a 487SX was $1057, vs. $588 for the 25 MHz 486DX plus having a spare 486SX you could sell or give away.

Nobody I knew ever bought a 487SX, and I don't think many companies even built computers with a 487SX socket. Even Intel can't push that kind of cynical "solution" and have wide success with it.

steveha

The important thing is the profits, not how 'big' they are. If you doubt it, imagine if the country of Congo were a company. Clearly Congo would be bigger than any company in the world (what company has land holdings the size of Congo?), but they would be making $11 billion a year (GDP). Not really good.

The fundamental reason for a stock having a particular price is the profit (or, future profit.....no one wants to hold stock in a company that makes less each year).

There is no doubt that Exxon is bigger, look at its revenue! (370billion vs 65 billion for Apple). But it doesn't matter which is bigger, it matters which will be making more profit. Their current profit is a lot closer, with 30 billion for Exxon and 14 billion for Apple, and on current trend, Apple will close that distance within three years.

The important thing is the profits, not how 'big' they are. If you doubt it, imagine if the country of Congo were a company. Clearly Congo would be bigger than any company in the world (what company has land holdings the size of Congo?), but they would be making $11 billion a year (GDP). Not really good.

The fundamental reason for a stock having a particular price is the profit (or, future profit.....no one wants to hold stock in a company that makes less each year).

There is no doubt that Exxon is bigger, look at its revenue! (370billion vs 65 billion for Apple). But it doesn't matter which is bigger, it matters which will be making more profit. Their current profit is a lot closer, with 30 billion for Exxon and 14 billion for Apple, and on current trend, Apple will close that distance within three years.

It's not coming back. Sorry. Toolbar was done when 5.0 came out: http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?answer=1342452&topic=15356

Google's got you covered: http://www.google.com/landing/recipes/

I noticed that their (Unladen Swallow) progress seemed to have stopped, is there any official announcement?

Unladen Swallow is an ex-parrot.. "Jeffrey and I have been pulled on to other projects of higher importance to Google.", writes the former project lead.

mikejuk:

You might think that the security and privacy aspects were so terrible that you just wouldn't install the app. However exceptional photos of a sporting or news incidents are worth money and the profit motive might be enough for you to install it.

Ben Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Doc Gonzo: They who can give up essential privacy to obtain a little temporary cash deserve only a little temporary cash, but neither liberty nor privacy.

This app might be worth granting access to your public images, if you could trust that the app would not get permission to access your private images (or anything outside the public images you allow). But then it wouldn't have the side effect of "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

What if I don't want to find any service packs? If I search for libre office, should I expect unbiased results from Bing? I don't think so!

By the way, what happened to http://www.google.com/linux ??

Google track you, and if you search for geeky things regularly then it will learn thats what you are usually looking for and deliver relevant results. If you use a completely clean browser, from an IP you've not used before, you will get different results...

Google claims it so that they can add value to your search results (and I believe them - so far) - I'm paraphrasing "when Bob searches for malt he means beer, when Jill searches for malt she means whiskey".

As for tracking - turn off geolocation in Firefox, wipe your cookies, and try out the new https://encrypted.google.com/

Unfortunately not but it's nice that a scam alert site comes up first.

Google indexes Slashdot comments, but will not pay any attention to links they contain. All URLs inside comments include the rel="nofollow" attribute, excluding them from participating in search engine ranking.

Unfortunately not but it's nice that a scam alert site comes up first.

The beauty of english is the ability to create alternative forms, all of which are equally valid. In this case the gatory factory has been hard at work since 1860, even if it is a surprise to you.

Litigatory actually predates litigious by well over a hundred years.

... in some probably unnecessarily fancy/expensive hardware?

Eldy, runs on most hardware, it's about a 13MB download free as in Gratis/Freeware and packs a Developers Network for bugs, translations and so forth.

In other words: Go ahead and recycle some hardware! Get a sturdy desktop or better yet, build a frame around it if needed be or hook it to a bigger (flat)TV.

I'm sure there exists some keyboards with bigger keys today if that is a requirement. Anyhow, it would be cool with a free as in Freedom oshw keyboard that was easy to build for the average /.-readers. Molding the keys or heck better yet, printing (im sure someone would help on the forums) a mold and molding with some silicone/rubbery material.

The problem isn't "software" vs "hardware," you probably say that because you write software, and don't think much about hardware patents.

The problem is it's incredibly easy to get a patent for something stupid. This patent of course makes that obvious, and it happens with hardware just like with software.

This isn't the end of Android though; what will most likely happen is the same that happened with GSM, where tons of different companies/groups have relevant patents. It became a bit more expensive to buy a GSM phone ($20 if I remember correctly), but all of the patent holders WANTED GSM phones sold, even if by their competitors, so they could make money on it. The same will likely happen for Android.