Slashdot Mirror

I was a bit surprised, but you're indeed correct about that. Not only that, but it's questionable as to whether the hard disk would be effected either. Theoretically you could amp up the magnetic field enough to destroy the SD card, from what I gather you'd also be removing the iron from the blood vessels with a magnetic field that strong.Busting the Biggest PC Myths

If the data is that sensitive you're better off with metal detectors and good old fashioned cavity searches.

::sigh::

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/149159-4/sorting_facts_from_fiction_in_the_terry_childs_case.html

Common Practices Portrayed as Nefarious

The documents filed by the city in opposition to Childs' bail reduction contained many vague references and claims of nefarious actions. But to those with experience in network administration, these activities seem like common practice.
For example, the documents portrayed the fact that Childs had configured some number of routers to disable password recovery as a subversive action, when it's common to use that function to secure routers and switches that cannot be physically secured.

Actually, a modchip for the PS3 just came out. http://www.pcworld.com/article/203788/hackers_claim_jailbreak_victory_with_playstation_3_usb_key.html?tk=hp_new

Disallowing Flash or cross-compiling from Flash on iOS is no more different than doing the same on the PSP or Nintendo DS. Or do you demand Sony and Nintendo open the flood gates for homebrew?

- Apple already allows "homebrew" apps through their App store, just not Flash
- who knows?

The issue is Apple wants to maintain the chokehold on their app store being the only source of apps, whereas Flash would effectively bypass it.

I keep hearing people claim reliability issues when SSD articles come along to slashdot.

I have never seen a citation, so I went looking for them via Google but could only find citations attesting to the high reliability of these devices.

Dell's Lionel Menchaca stated in 2008, when it was reported by Avian Securities that Dell was having SSD reliability issues, "Our global reliability data shows that SSD drives [that we shipped] are equal to or better than traditional hard disk drives we've shipped." He further notes that Avian Securities never contacted them and that their numbers were a complete fabrication.

At this point I consider any claims that SSD's are less reliable to simply be a myth derived from dishonest reporting.

Furthermore, there are published studies detailing how unreliable traditional magnetic platter drives are.

Do they have write limits? Yes. Can other parts of the device fail? Yes. Are they more expensive than economy platters? Yes. Is there real world data showing that they are less reliable as claimed? Apparently not.

> I have to wonder...

No you don't. You could look.

You probably can't look -- that's why he said "hidden meta data" instead of just "meta data".

Remember how long it took for researchers to find and then identify the purpose of http://www.pcworld.com/article/118664/government_uses_color_laser_printer_technology_to_track_documents.html the hidden serial number written on printouts from color laser printers, copiers, etc?

Needed a frickin blue LED and magnifying glass to see it and then you needed serious work to deduce that was actually a bit of encoded meta data and not just a malfunction.

If you're not using Open Source to create your PDF, how can you really know what meta data might be hidden in it?

The speed changes in webkit are being backported to KHTML.

Is that the actual plan? At one time, I thought the plan was an "unforking".

As to why, its always good to have choices and an alternate source in case someone pulls a Larry Ellison on you.

Oracle is wielding patents. If Apple decided to do that, then it wont make any difference if these are two projects or one.

The speed changes in webkit are being backported to KHTML.

As to why, its always good to have choices and an alternate source in case someone pulls a Larry Ellison on you.

Besides you being an obvious Apple fanboy, I read your other comment above about reviews.

So-called "Reviews" are nothing but ads, and have been for many years now. The only trustworthy source of reviews, Consumer Reports, threw Apple under the bus just as Apple have thrown their fall-guy under the bus.

Seagate is already selling a 3TB drive.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/200031/big_seagate_3tb_drive_ups_storage_ante.html

And guess what? They all do that, they all have peering arrangements with each other for call completion.

Hilariously, Google Voice has already been caught blocking calls to certain rural call centers because they discovered they didn't like the exchange contracts anymore. The rest of the major Telcos are whining to mama government to get the rural exchanges to stop. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/189820/rural_carrier_traffic_pumping_isnt_easy_issue.html

But guess what, the internet has the exact same peering agreements.

Just like the phone companies, the ISPs are crying about the contracts they signed. I pay ISP A for internet access, Amazon pays ISP B for internet access, and ISP A and B have an agreement to pay each other for the traffic they send either way (possibly with ISP C, D, and E somewhere in the middle). Now, ISP A whines that they're not getting enough money. Rather than charging me more, or charging ISP B more, they're claiming that they deserve to be able to charge Amazon for "using their network" despite their existing peering contract. They figure that if they just train their tech support to pretend that the problem is at the other end, they can extort Amazon into agreeing by simply dropping their traffic or redirecting it to a site that will pay. Same goes for other companies: voice over IP or IPTV that competes with their services or that they just don't want to pay their peers for? They'll drop that too, or just mess with it enough that its unusable. Sandvine and Comcast proves this is not a hypothetical. The fact that they were eventually caught just means they'll try harder next time.

Probably. You might have a harder time keeping them there though. http://www.pcworld.com/article/168654/amazon_removes_ebooks_from_kindle_store_revokes_ownership.html

AT&T has faster average download and upload speeds than Verizon - stop spreading misinformation. citation: http://www.pcworld.com/article/189592/atandt_roars_back_in_pcworlds_second_3g_wireless_performance_test.html

The tethering app wasn't discovered because it was extremely difficult to trigger - it required very specific network settings, a multi-step setup process, and tapping different colors in a specific pattern just to enable the tether. Very different from discovering an app is sending your data off wholesale.

yup, different. much more like THIS iphone app. ;D http://www.pcworld.com/article/188595/

as long as they don't encumber it with ultraviolet

You forgot 4, 5, and 6
4. No keyboard (slide out keyboards are a iPhone killers / the reason I didn't upgrade from my G1)
5. 3G service problems
6. Poor costumer support from Google

don't blame the sales model when it's really an issue of inferior hardware.

Indeed, the real story here (though not news by any means) is the inability of the British press to report on the EU without being willfully misleading. The headline "European £1bn IT programme to study three-legged dogs" is not strictly speaking false - it just fails to mention that that 1 billion will be used for many other things as well. A more reasonable article is here: European IT Research Gets €1.2 Billion From EU.

People are moderating above post as funny. In fact, a Microsoft Security Update really did shut down a nuclear reactor.

Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to shut downs caused by network, malware, and "normal" Microsoft Windows related issues. See: malware shutting down a nuclear reactor, and network trouble shuts down a nuclear reactor.

Apple knows their target market backwards and forwards, that market excludes business men.

Except Apple is spending extensive efforts to court IT departments and establish corporate credibility.

Falcon

That is an ubiquitous equation. Hype is directly proportional to outrage. This is why any company doing competent PR handling needs to watch the hype on any new design, especially when it is a new design of a popular product.

Apple caused all of this, by ridiculously overstating the utility, elegance, and functionality of the iPhone, and by rolling the dice by redesigning the wheel. This isn't the first time they've screwed up with that one.

Then Jobs whined about it. He literally whined. He's done everything short of saying "he wants his iLife back."

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the man, nor his company. It's true, this isn't about any critical issue, but it's a severe issue, a design flaw worthy of a recall, IMHO, and also Jobs' opinion, as Apple is offering refunds.

But ultimately, this is about Jobs being a lousy spokesman when representing his company. If I was a shareholder, I'd be pissed. If I were on the board I'd want some assurances from him, or I'd ask for new leadership, before it turns into a real problem.

--
Toro

every other day, news from microsoft. none of them relate to o/ses. so what ? ms has dropped its core business ?

Win7 is still selling really well - how's that for news? But it's the boring kind of news that geeks aren't bothered about, so you don't hear much about it here.

Oh, and did you miss the recent Win7 / Win2008 R2 SP1 beta?

And it's just a tad too early for news on the next major release, given that it has only been a year since the last RTM. Give it some time to cook.

Mine also displays 24p with no problems - however, the refresh rate is 600hz., not 24hz. It divides evenly - displaying each frame 25 times. Someone with a 120hz display can also display 24p correctly, displaying each frame 5 times (or they can choose to use the motion interpolation feature). However, anyone with a 60hz refresh rate is screwed - 24p requires a pulldown interlacing, because it's either that, or display one frame 2x, the next 3x, the next 2x, the next 3x - and that looks awful so nobody does it.

So unless your tv is 120, 240, 480, or 600 hz, you cannot display non-interlaced 24p.

Additionally, the picture - in ALL cases, has artifacts. It's always stored with lossy compression - and you get a lot more loss when there's more motion - look at the motion block encoding algorithms.

Third, if you're getting your signal through satellite or cable, it's going to look crappier than an OTA signal, because the already-compressed stream has been recompressed to conserve bandwidth - so a free 1080i signal can look better than the 1080p that you pay for.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but the capabilities of technology tend to filter done the price scale rather quickly. 2010's $500 device is 2012's $100 device is 2014's "get two free when you switch to our network" device. It won't be long before just about every phone for sale is a smart phone.

Pricewise, I beg to differ. The first android phone is barely 2 years old. Apparently it's impossible to find after its price was slashed in half last year to $99 (with a contract). Very few models get to become venerable AND remain in circulation like the Motorolla Rzr. Meaning, we rarely see tried models for cheap prices on the streets. Even when the inevitable good phone arrives, companies realize that phasing them out is good to maintain high profit margins. Exhibit A: the yearly iPhone rehash.

The summary for the submitted article misses almost EVERY important aspect to this story, as it was initially reported! It almost looks like an attempt to deliberately minimize concern over the dubious legality and suspect agenda for "Perfect Citizen".

In fact, Samzenpus and "Wiggles" seem content not to mention the program's Orwellian name, nor the specific use of the term "Big Brother" by Ratheon contractors associated with the NSA on this effort.

Here is the summary I supplied, when submitting this story as a front-pager for Slashdot. I believe that it is more cogent and INFORMATIVE than the blandness offered us.

The WSJ is reporting on an $100M NSA program "to detect cyber assaults on private companies and government agencies running such critical infrastructure as the electricity grid and nuclear-power plants." All of which sound nice enough, if one does not become critically focused on the name they chose for this effort: 'Perfect Citizen'. Releasing this to the WSJ has the appearance of PR cover for the expansion of both warrantless surveillance and the intrusion of the NSA into a theatre of domestic operations.
Ratheon, the NSA contractor charged with realizing the NSA vision for the 'Perfect Citizen' program openly called this the "Big Brother" system, in internal communications.

For once, I really wouldn't mind a "dupe" story, either my summary or that of another poster with some insight to the implications of "Perfect Citizen".

Does Twitter make money? I'm not trolling, I'm serious. A quick search yields this article:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/200635/twitter_to_promote_marketers_special_offers.html

Even the author of my linked article has doubts. If I wasn't making money, I'd try to limit my expenditures (bandwidth costs, etc.) too. It's not surprising to me.

So how do they make money?

According to this review, the iPad can loop a movie continuously for 11 hours and 25 minutes while connected to wi-fi. I can't imagine that using a full on netbook with a larger battery and an arm processor won't be able to duplicate this feat.

Some examples of blind tests, purporting there is no difference. None.

As long as you you don't have the cheek to actually advertise the fact that your app is available elsewhere, then yes - you should be ok. Drop the word Android somewhere in your app however and it's a different story.

You do not have to get your apps through the Android Market.

AT&T routinely removes the checkbox to enable software from "Unknown sources" from its Android phones' firmware.

It's funny how Twitter could get a 20-year moratorium because somebody "hacked" Barack Hussein Obama's twitter while Big Oil(TM) gets only a 6 month moratorium, if even that.

Just imagine trying to do this from an iPhone in a major market!

I know that it's fashionable to make fun of AT&T. I don't like carrier-exclusive agreements either - I think that they're anti-consumer and shouldn't be allowed. However, AT&T's network is actually the best in most markets as shown in independent tests by Gizmodo, PC World, and PC Magazine.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364263,00.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/article/189592/atandt_roars_back_in_pcworlds_second_3g_wireless_performance_test.html
http://gizmodo.com/5428343/our-2009-12+city-3g-data-mega-test-att-won

The most recent test (PC Magazine) shows AT&T nearly 80% faster than the other 3G networks (June 2010). PC World's tests show AT&T to be 67% faster than the competition (Feb 2010). Gizmodo's tests show AT&T on top, but by a smaller margin (Dec 2009). PC World's tests do show that AT&T has improved markedly since their Feb 2009 tests (improving speeds by over 200% in some places). By the end of 2009, AT&T's network was the fastest and it's kept improving to widen the gap. Even in so-called trouble markets like New York and San Francisco AT&T is doing well. In San Francisco, their speeds are double the competition's average and over 75% faster than the second fastest. In New York, T-Mobile's HSPA+ network (recently rolled out) is 10% faster, but AT&T is still 94% faster than Verizon and 130% faster than Sprint.

It's fashionable to make fun of AT&T. If you live in a rural area, AT&T might not have 3G service to you. If you were using AT&T in 2007 and 2008, their service was likely slower than the competition. That is not the case anymore. Real data (rather than anecdotal evidence) shows AT&T to be quite ahead of the competition when it comes to 3G capacity in major markets.

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

Since this was a flaw in AT&T's security, despite Gawker's attempt to make it Apple's fault, why the hell would or should it affect Apple's image?

From a source not being sued by Apple for theft

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/198453/should_you_worry_about_the_ipad_3g_data_leak.html

Just go to the configuration, and check the box at "enable new markets".

Unless your carrier has removed "enable new markets" from the menu, as AT&T appears to do.

I would never drive a car that says, "Before you start your car, there is an important safety update, do you want to install that update or blow it off?"

Bullshit. It's called maintenance, and yes, cars do require it. In fact, it's much more onerous than clicking a few times and call it done - not to mention it's much cheaper.

I guess I'm saying that now that internet access is available via cell technology and wifi and wired devices, and I don't know of anybody that uses a compuer not connected to one of these things, that bandwidth needs to increase and "cloud" or computing as a service needs to become a reality. Sure, nobody trusts these big bad internet companies with their data besides the exceptions like online tax services, online banking, facebook and their ilk, ISPs with their logs and their email, ecommerce, and other random services. But maybe, just maybe in the near future there can be a stable computing platform.

First, I trust third parties with *some* of my data, carefully selected. The "cloud" solution requires you to trust all your data.
Second, trusting everything in the cloud is nice because it never fails.

I'm willing to bet that most users don't use less than 2GB. I'm betting that only about half of the users use less than 2GB, and that AT&T is going to make up the difference in the $15 per GB overage charges.

You bet wrong:

According to AT&T, 98 percent of its customers consume less than 2Gb of data bandwidth per month, and 65 percent actually eat up less than 200Mb.

Of course, you are free to accuse them of lying.

Linky Article

Blizzard vs. Bnetd wasn't the case name, it was Vivendi vs. Bnetd and it had nothing to do with virtual property. It was only a small part about the ability to enforce the EULA, and it was much more about supposedly copying and reverse engineering, sections of the EULA, to make a compatible server.

ProCD vs. Zeidenberg was also about EULA's and if a list of phone numbers can even be copyrighted, which they held they can NOT. The case was around the EULA's ability to limit people from redistributing the data.

So actually both of the cases you cite have nothing to do with virtual property and they don't make it clear that such a thing would hold up. You have to remember that these cases are about specific EULAs and if those clauses are legally enforceable. There is nothing saying that the Haboo's EULA would be legally enforceable until it gets before a judge/jury.

If fact I seem to recall a few cases with Ultima Online and Linden Labs about how you can actually sue over loss of virtual property at least in the US and other countries it appears.

Bragg v. Linden Labs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab

Virtual Currency Extortion
http://www.pcworld.com/article/165447/china_sentences_virtual_currency_extorter_to_prison.html

http://services.martindale.com/internet-law/article_Sheppard-Mullin-Richter-Hampton-LLP_689960.htm

Dutch Teens Convicted of Virtual Theft
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,442322,00.html

So it is clear that you can say in a EULA that virtual stuff has no value, but the courts are not seeing it that way at all.

While I plan on an Android for my next phone, the iPhone keyboard isn't as objectionable as I thought it would be. It isn't as nice as Treo's old keyboards, but I find myself typing letters and things on the iPhone instead of waiting for my laptop to boot up. I can get a good 40 WPM on it, which is only a little bit slower than I can reasonably pull together a coherent sentence.

I've always been an ultraportable kind of guy. I have a 12" Dell XPS as my primary machine from when light and small were synonymous with hyperexpensive such as Sony's 2k dollar flimsy protonetbook. The Mini-9 is one of the lightest netbooks out there at 2.3 pounds, with a 8.9" screen and 1" thickness. The iPad has a 9.7" screen. It's also half as thick as the dell (0.5") and only 2/3rds of the weight. And the Dell gets about 4 hours of real-world use before running out of battery, while the iPad gets an astonishing 10 real-world hours or longer

For something that's only 20% more expensive than the Dell Mini 9, that's pretty impressive. If what you need is a way to jot down thoughts and notes on a cross-country flight, or take notes all day in classrooms, the battery on traditional netbooks won't hold up. And cutting out 1/3rd of the weight + 1/2 of the bulk is darned impressive. They also start up much more quickly, for faster notetaking. Hopefully that will drive forth the adoption of instant-on linux boot netbooks such as Presto, etc.

I don't have one, but I'm curious to see what it does to the market. If you're looking for something to SSH into your servers from, you're much better off with a Linux-based netbook. But if you just need to lug something around for long periods of time, short of a phone it really doesn't get much more portable than an iPad.

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I will bite :)
"They did this around the world, long term and had to set the tech up to do it and keep the data collection going." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8imuNrdgq9uo-_uDoktPD05Y2Rw
Google said Street View cars have been collecting WiFi data in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Macau, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United States.
Google missed a request from the German gov to show what data they collected and how it was stored ect.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20006157-265.html
"Google skips German deadline for Wi-Fi data"
"we need to review, we are continuing to discuss the appropriate legal"
The Media Access Control (MAC) is like a unique number in a wifi devices hardware. Not easy to change and google collected it too with the users data packets, SSID (Service Set Identifier) and their locations.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/197349/google_rejects_german_request_for_wifi_data.html
As for the COINTELPRO idea, what happens when a state task force or city PD wants to run its own cyber department but cannot seem to get long term, rolling blanket city wide warrants?
They might just buy data in bulk from the private sector and then set up their own intelligence gathering networks.
Mistakes will be made.

It's certainly not unheard of: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/188717/chinese_man_gets_30_months_for_fake_cisco_sales.html

If you've ever worked with the Chinese, then you'll know they have zero respect for software licences, including the GPL. On one memorable occasion, we had to fight and threaten legal action to get some firmware released by Chinese contractors, and when they did, it was all cut and paste from well-known GPL'd projects.

Once again anecdotally, in my experience lots of enterprise network admins believe Huawei gear is Cisco-derived.

Android is not locked down to only being to install software from one place. You are even free to implement an AlternaMarket.

Unless your carrier has customized your phone's operating system to remove "Unknown sources".

Not sure, but there have been lawsuits over stolen e-goods: http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/005816.html

They're selling a gazillion iPads

I thought the number is closer to 1-2 million at this point. I've read expectations for about 7 mil over the course of 2010. Certainly decent number, even without the hyperbole or fictional units. Might as well get it right. Just to provide some perspective, there were 5.2 million Android OS devices sold in the U.S. during the first quarter of 2010.

cell phone providers

I'm confused, do you mean service providers, cell phone manufacturers, or OS authors? Apple is the last two, but definitely not the first. I'm going to assume that you mean the last one (an operating system author), the one that most people here care about.

Apple is gaining grounds on the higher ranked cell phone providers

Android OS phones beat iPhone OS sales last quarter in North America (source). As that article states, there are several reasons that this was inevitable, but most of those factors will still be in play in a year. More interesting than the fact that Android pulled out a small victory is the fact that it increased its market share so quickly. It didn't get a serious hardware contender until Fall 2009, and they already overtook iPhone OS in sales domestically.

"the lay people" are clamoring for more as far as I can tell

The above information should show that this isn't entirely true. There are a ton of "lay people" who have honestly become sick of Apple and their buffoonery. Merely as an example: my father has a 1st gen iPhone. He regularly has to use USB flash drives as apart of his job, and liked the idea of using his iPhone instead for USB file transfer. The iPhone, magically, does not have Mass Storage capability out of the box. One has to download an app to make it work, an app that wasn't around since day 1 of the iPhone. Even now, this probably isn't an app that an average "lay person" even knows to look for. My father knows that my mother's phone (an ancient blackberry) and my phone (a G1) both do this without a problem. Moreover, when he asks whether the brand new iPhones can do this simple task out of the box, the answer will still be a resounding "no". He has expressed to me that for this and several other reasons, he will not be wanting another iPhone to replace his current one when it dies. In conclusion, I agree that many of those annoying Apple issues that us FOSS people complain about will mean nothing to the average "lay person", but there are more issues than you think that are visible to your average smartphone user.

Google discovered its error after auditing its Street View Wi-Fi data at the request of the Hamburg, Germany, data protection authority.

Any idea, why data protection authority of the Hamburg would request such audit? http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/196372/google_stops_sniffing_wifi_data_after_privacy_gaffe.html

The Compaq Deskpro 386 started at $6499. The Amiga 1000 was $1295 ($300 more for the monitor).

In a lot of ways, while Verizon (oddly enough) has been pretty outgoing in embracing Android and not screwing with its customer's devices, AT&T doesn't let you install non-market apps, adds your phone with unusable bloatware that isn't removable, changes the default search engine to Yahoo! and generally takes out any open-ness of Android (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/191036/motorola_backflip_on_atandt_not_the_full_android_experience.html and note that AT&T has been heavily promoting the Backflip and it is their only Android phone).

Plus carrier's reluctance to letting you tether with your phone even though it doesn't affect the network any more at all (and seriously, you are paying $20-30 a month for crappy internet, the least they could do is let you use it whenever)

And I also believe that it is the carriers that make the Android phones be locked because the phones Google sells directly (Dev phone, Nexus One) are already rooted out of the box.

I, for one, welcome our new open codec overlords.

Woohoo! Much good will come of this.

And all you closed, patent encumbered codec trolls: please go away now. Your services are no longer required.

The project is also backed by hardware partners such as AMD, ARM, and Nvidia. "Hardware acceleration is extremely important." Sunder Pichai, Google vice president of product management (From TheRegister link).