This new design has ruined the comment threads. Something insightful often isn't said until a few layers into a thread, but even if they've been modded up you don't see their comment unless the previous comment has also been modded up.
What about people asking a question? They don't get modded up because it's not interesting, but the answer is, yet because the asker isn't I don't see the comment.
I don't mind the ajaxy stuff, it generally makes things easier for me. The rest of the redesign I couldn't really care less about, it's the content that matters. But you've somehow managed to screw that up by destroying the threads. Thanks.
I get the impression that the moderate openness of the PS3 at release was exactly what did preserve its uncracked status for so long. As soon as they locked out the 'Other OS' option, they pissed off the precise segment of the userbase who also have the skill to crack any subsequent security improvements.
A prime example that reverse engineering DRM should be legal. After all, the ones doing it aren't actually doing it to break security protections, instead just to use their device in the ways they want to. Kind of ironic, you break our fun, we'll break yours.
I quite like the idea of virtualization on a phone. Plenty of issues like battery and performance among others will of course exist, but I know people in situations where their work requires them to use software that only works on Windows Mobile. Virtualization provides the ability to have the phone they want, i.e. Android, yet still being able to use work software would be brilliant. Perhaps through a layer similar to wine.
I'm pretty sure this isn't the kind of virtualization that the article is getting at, but it is a prospect that certainly appeals to me.
The main problem I have with it isn't that they seized so many domains, it's their seizure of, for example, the tvshack.cc domain. Its top level domain is for the Cocos Islands, an Australian territory. The US should have zero control over another country's domains, but they managed to pull it off because the.cc TLD is managed by Verisign, a US company. I guess I should blame the Cocos Islands for that one, but no US company/entity, or any country for that matter, should have that kind of control over another country's domains, and any complaints about a foreign domain should go through diplomatic channels.
As opposed to what, Microsoft sitting on its hands for months or years because they won't fix or until they can't take the wailing and gnashing of teeth anymore?
At least then you're only waiting on MS to get off it's ass, not MS and then the manufacturer..
You don't go to Apple and ask for Windows patches. You don't ask Windows to patch your iWhatever. Each company maintains its own patches. If the common point in between two devices happens to be Android, how can this be some kind of nightmare? It's SOP. The company that sells you the gadget gives you the patches. In short, so what?
However, you do go to Microsoft for windows patches even when your laptop is made by Acer. That's the point he's making, in previous OS situations you would go to Google for the patch, but you can't, you have to go to the device manufacturer instead.
How about pointing to TFA? The company itself put a version of their software up on a torrent site for people to download from freely. How can they then say said downloads were illegal?
I may have just missed something here, but I've just read both links available and I can't see anything where it says that they have uploaded a version of their software, or created any torrents. Where is it written that they did? I don't mean this as a troll as I may have just overlooked it somehow..Or has that juicy little bit of information been removed from the article since its initial publishing
Just to note, if they did upload/create their own torrents then I completely agree with you. That is them effectively publishing their material in a free manner, although I suppose if you downloaded it and installed it having to go through an EULA, legally dubious I know, then they could claim that you did not agree to their terms. But in those circumstances they wouldn't be able to sue you for just downloading it..
The other (much more ambitious) idea, is to mix it with an HTML 5 demo I already was considering. I'd need some way to turn Kinect events into mouse events, I guess. Something that a browser can handle, in any case, so I think that means mouse events. Something multitouchy would be nice, but I don't think browsers support that, do they?
I find I use the internet too much on my phone to be able to sensibly use prepaid plans. Instead, when I visit the states (I'm a UK citizen) I get a rolling monthly contract from T-Mobile. It gives me all the normal minutes/texts/whatever crap I don't really use, and then the "unlimited" internet package.
That being said, the American phone system is horrendously overpriced. When in the states I pay $60 month to month. For an equivalent package here in the UK I pay £10 per month, (~$16)!!
I think you're misunderstanding the idea here. The point is, even if you are willing to shell out the extra money to get an unsubsidized unlocked phone, you're generally still stuck on a given carrier anyway. I can't just take my AT&T phone and hook up to Verizon's or Sprint's network because their networks are different technologies.
The different technologies are an issue that can't be sidestepped, at least, not without phone manufacturers going to the effort of making a phone with multiple communications technologies.. But, can you easily move between verizon's network and sprint's? I'm a UK resident who visits the US frequently, and from everything I've heard and seen Verizon at the very least aren't too happy about activating other people's phones on their network, even if you do have an unlocked phone with a valid serial number. Is this the same for Sprint? Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Even switching to T-Mobile, which should be possible because both AT&T and T-Mobile are GSM, doesn't really work because AT&T and T-Mobile use different frequencies for 3G.
Now this one is through greed. A large portion of the world uses the same frequencies for 3g communication, but AT&T decided to be different? Two possible reasons, using that seperate frequency boosts speeds? AT&T's network is proof this is not the case, and I get faster speeds on my phone here in the UK and on T-Mobile's US network than I have on any phone designed for AT&T. So the only other choice is consumer lockin, tantamount to greed.
Tranferring an unlocked phone should be limited by the technologies being used, and be transferrable between any networks using those technologies. In a nutshell, swappable between Sprint & Verizon, or swappable between AT&T and T-Mobile.
There's always a happy medium that can be had. Why not have the option, maybe hidden away for the more technical users, to disable the kill switch. Using this option would alert the user that they may be disconnected from the network if a rogue application does cause problems that would otherwise have been removed using the kill switch. A good service for the average user, and an informed user for those that want the choice. And if they choose to ignore the warning and lose service, then that's their own fault..
Now the developers have actually gone and made money off that data, and now less than a dozen of the smallest targets are getting picked off.How on Earth is that fair?
Not to nitpick, but when has the world ever been fair?
The oil companies for example are not paid by the government to run safe rigs and to clean up their spills, the government forces them to do that if they want to remain in the oil business.
They may require safe rigs and to clean up spills, but they don't expect the oil company to ensure all users of their oil aren't speeding or breaking the law in some other respect.
The ISP's are required to run a safe network that doesn't, say, electrocute anyone. If they dig up the roads to install more wires they're required to put the road back together afterwards, and so on. Expecting them to also police their network at an individual user level is not the same thing, and deserves compensation.
I made the change this morning, and I've just had to switch back due to issues I've had with my android phone. Switching to gmail.com causes numerous logins to fail because they attempt to do so using the googlemail.com login and are instead rejected. Changing the username on my phone involves resetting many of the default options and having to restore a load of data on it manually, so the best option was switching back to googlemail.com.
This isn't a problem for me, but just a heads up for those using android. Receiving mail using the gmail.com extension still works with the googlemail.com setting, I'm just unsure if you can send from a gmail.com login if you haven't made the switch.
It's not just social networking sites though. Virtually ANY site you use has one of these clauses, collects personal information about you that you expect to remain private. It's getting to the stage where if you want to use the internet (a large portion of it), you have to agree that the website can do whatever the hell they want with your data, even though they said they wouldn't.
Geeknet reserves the right, at Geeknet's sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms periodically. Such modifications shall be effective immediately upon posting of the modified agreement to the website unless provided otherwise (e.g., when implementing major, substantive changes, Geeknet intends to provide users with up to fourteen days of advance notice). Your continued use of the Geeknet Sites following the posting of changes to these Terms will mean that you accept those changes.
Geeknet reserves the right to update and change this Privacy Statement from time to time. If Geeknet makes material changes to its privacy practices, a prominent notice will be posted on this web page. Each time a user uses the Sites, the current version of the Privacy Statement applies. Accordingly, a user should check the date of this Privacy Statement (which appears at the top) and review for any changes since the last version. If a user does not agree to the Privacy Statement, the user should not use the Sites.
Unless it's a flaw directly within the messenger software rather than the user who clicked the link...Microsoft wasn't really involved...
I wouldn't say Microsoft was directly involved, but back when I used Windows XP and Window Live Messenger, no matter what I did I could never get Windows Live Messenger to open up a link in anything other than IE. It's been a while so things might have changed, but this "feature" could make them at least indirectly involved.
You are not the only one, I am a bandwidth leech and I agree that there should be limitations on my usage. What I disagree with though is that I am limited without being informed that it will happen. I also disagree with being lied to about it, and I also disagree with communications protocols being abused to limit me.
If they want to limit me, they need to make me aware that I will be limited for certain usages. They need to be precise and stick to their word about how and when, so that I as a consumer can choose which package will suit me and my usage needs. They need to stop selling "unlimited" packages, and then claiming I am overusing it. They need to limit my usage through the usage of correct protocol, and they need to be honest about it.
We are not greedy, we are simply using what we have paid for, and what we have been promised.
I seriously have to ask, what is this guy on? Of course moving to multicore machines requires an OS rework. Frankly even windows has already been reworked to support this, and will continue to evolve in ways that prove beneficial. This is how development works, you gain a better understanding of the problem and then change things for the theoretical better then investigate then next holdup.
Why should you ever, with all this parallel hardware, ever be waiting for your computer?
Processing takes time. Chucking multiple cores at a problem doesn't magically make this time disappear. There are always physical limitations with the hardware available. Most of the delays you see nowadays in consumer applications (and others) are not from a lack of processing power, but instead from poor memory speed. For a processor to be able to do any real work it has to load all of the information from the hard drive into memory. Only then does the power of a single core come into play, and for a surprisingly short period of time. Even then accessing memory is an extremely slow operation, as information has to be brought into the caches, and written back/through to memory. The moment you start adding multiple cores on top of this, you suddenly start getting coherence issues between the caches, where one cache writes to data that is shared between the cores.
The OS could assign an application a CPU and some memory, and the program itself, using metadata generated by the compiler, would best know how to use these resources
Is he suggesting that you have as many CPU's as you do programs, each with their own high-speed caches. CPU's in general sit there idling for a large percentage of the time, and that's with multiprogramming already in place. Also, the caches are the most expensive form of memory, are consumers going to pay that price, for something where they'll still just have to wait for IO anyway? This just sounds like an extremely large waste of resources. The last part of that statement is also how things already work. Has this guy not heard of OpenMP before? Granted for the time being people are expected to include this metadata themselves, but this is an area of computing being highly researched, attempting to automate this process as much as possible. Most compilers already do this up to the point of static analysis, and many are gaining new abilities such as speculation to go further.
To get the full benefit from multiple cores, developers need to use parallel programming techniques. It remains a difficult discipline to master and hasn't been used much, outside of specialized scientific programs such as climate simulators.
It is difficult, but it's getting easier. Many programmers learnt to program in a sequential imperative way, it takes time to break out of these habits. It is also a discovery process as we don't entirely know how to make programs in parallel. Languages are adapting to aide this process (many functional languages for example) but they each have their own issues and limitations. These techniques are being widely used, but much of the problem is that consumer level programs don't actually have much parallelism to them. It becomes much more obvious for scientific programs as they are inherently parallel. Again, compilers are making great strides in automating this process for the programmer.
You don't want to wait for Microsoft Word to get started because the antivirus program chose that moment to start scanning all your files. Most OSes have some priority scheduling to avoid these bottlenecks, but they are still crude
So think about the specifics of how the hardware itself is going to react to what you're asking and work on a better scheduling mechanism?
In this approach, the operating system would no longer resemble the kernel mode of today's OSes, but rather act more like a hypervisor. A concept from virtualization, a hypervi
Android is not java. Yes it has java aspects but it is not java! It's bits of java with a customized Android API.It doesn't even run a normal JVM, it runs the Dalvik VM.
Not only that, but all of the code from other Java programs will run on your Android phone
Seriously, no. Just... no. Try compiling a program that uses Swing, AWT or javax stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Android and hate iPhones. I have a G1 (lacking on RAM as much as it is). I've programmed for android although for fun, not the marketplace. I've even made my own ROM, again for fun. But claiming Android is Java and that everything that Java can do Android can also do natively is just naive
Google Buzz + Google Reader
on
Two Scoops of Buzz
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why oh why must they force the integration of Google Buzz and Google Reader? I use google reader every day, often share things with various contacts, and read things that have been shared with me. It was awesome. Then Google Buzz came along and forced integration of the two. I don't want Google Buzz but if I go ahead and remove it, it'll remove the sharing abilities I had within Google Reader. I understand the possible benefit of having the two connected, by choice, but without choice Google is simply screwing up one of their actually decent products!
Slashdot Mirror
This new design has ruined the comment threads. Something insightful often isn't said until a few layers into a thread, but even if they've been modded up you don't see their comment unless the previous comment has also been modded up.
What about people asking a question? They don't get modded up because it's not interesting, but the answer is, yet because the asker isn't I don't see the comment.
I don't mind the ajaxy stuff, it generally makes things easier for me. The rest of the redesign I couldn't really care less about, it's the content that matters. But you've somehow managed to screw that up by destroying the threads. Thanks.
I get the impression that the moderate openness of the PS3 at release was exactly what did preserve its uncracked status for so long. As soon as they locked out the 'Other OS' option, they pissed off the precise segment of the userbase who also have the skill to crack any subsequent security improvements.
A prime example that reverse engineering DRM should be legal. After all, the ones doing it aren't actually doing it to break security protections, instead just to use their device in the ways they want to. Kind of ironic, you break our fun, we'll break yours.
I quite like the idea of virtualization on a phone. Plenty of issues like battery and performance among others will of course exist, but I know people in situations where their work requires them to use software that only works on Windows Mobile. Virtualization provides the ability to have the phone they want, i.e. Android, yet still being able to use work software would be brilliant. Perhaps through a layer similar to wine.
I'm pretty sure this isn't the kind of virtualization that the article is getting at, but it is a prospect that certainly appeals to me.
What's more foolish? The Republicans? Or the fool who thinks the Democrats are any better? They aren't. They are both dicks.
No, one is a douche, and the other is a turd.
The main problem I have with it isn't that they seized so many domains, it's their seizure of, for example, the tvshack.cc domain. Its top level domain is for the Cocos Islands, an Australian territory. The US should have zero control over another country's domains, but they managed to pull it off because the .cc TLD is managed by Verisign, a US company. I guess I should blame the Cocos Islands for that one, but no US company/entity, or any country for that matter, should have that kind of control over another country's domains, and any complaints about a foreign domain should go through diplomatic channels.
As opposed to what, Microsoft sitting on its hands for months or years because they won't fix or until they can't take the wailing and gnashing of teeth anymore?
At least then you're only waiting on MS to get off it's ass, not MS and then the manufacturer..
You don't go to Apple and ask for Windows patches. You don't ask Windows to patch your iWhatever. Each company maintains its own patches. If the common point in between two devices happens to be Android, how can this be some kind of nightmare? It's SOP. The company that sells you the gadget gives you the patches. In short, so what?
However, you do go to Microsoft for windows patches even when your laptop is made by Acer. That's the point he's making, in previous OS situations you would go to Google for the patch, but you can't, you have to go to the device manufacturer instead.
How about pointing to TFA? The company itself put a version of their software up on a torrent site for people to download from freely. How can they then say said downloads were illegal?
I may have just missed something here, but I've just read both links available and I can't see anything where it says that they have uploaded a version of their software, or created any torrents. Where is it written that they did? I don't mean this as a troll as I may have just overlooked it somehow..Or has that juicy little bit of information been removed from the article since its initial publishing
Just to note, if they did upload/create their own torrents then I completely agree with you. That is them effectively publishing their material in a free manner, although I suppose if you downloaded it and installed it having to go through an EULA, legally dubious I know, then they could claim that you did not agree to their terms. But in those circumstances they wouldn't be able to sue you for just downloading it..
The other (much more ambitious) idea, is to mix it with an HTML 5 demo I already was considering. I'd need some way to turn Kinect events into mouse events, I guess. Something that a browser can handle, in any case, so I think that means mouse events. Something multitouchy would be nice, but I don't think browsers support that, do they?
Step one is complete: http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/hacked-kinect-taught-to-work-as-multitouch-interface/. Now they just need to create an html5 demo.
I find I use the internet too much on my phone to be able to sensibly use prepaid plans. Instead, when I visit the states (I'm a UK citizen) I get a rolling monthly contract from T-Mobile. It gives me all the normal minutes/texts/whatever crap I don't really use, and then the "unlimited" internet package.
That being said, the American phone system is horrendously overpriced. When in the states I pay $60 month to month. For an equivalent package here in the UK I pay £10 per month, (~$16)!!
I think you're misunderstanding the idea here. The point is, even if you are willing to shell out the extra money to get an unsubsidized unlocked phone, you're generally still stuck on a given carrier anyway. I can't just take my AT&T phone and hook up to Verizon's or Sprint's network because their networks are different technologies.
The different technologies are an issue that can't be sidestepped, at least, not without phone manufacturers going to the effort of making a phone with multiple communications technologies.. But, can you easily move between verizon's network and sprint's? I'm a UK resident who visits the US frequently, and from everything I've heard and seen Verizon at the very least aren't too happy about activating other people's phones on their network, even if you do have an unlocked phone with a valid serial number. Is this the same for Sprint? Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Even switching to T-Mobile, which should be possible because both AT&T and T-Mobile are GSM, doesn't really work because AT&T and T-Mobile use different frequencies for 3G.
Now this one is through greed. A large portion of the world uses the same frequencies for 3g communication, but AT&T decided to be different? Two possible reasons, using that seperate frequency boosts speeds? AT&T's network is proof this is not the case, and I get faster speeds on my phone here in the UK and on T-Mobile's US network than I have on any phone designed for AT&T. So the only other choice is consumer lockin, tantamount to greed.
Tranferring an unlocked phone should be limited by the technologies being used, and be transferrable between any networks using those technologies. In a nutshell, swappable between Sprint & Verizon, or swappable between AT&T and T-Mobile.
There's always a happy medium that can be had. Why not have the option, maybe hidden away for the more technical users, to disable the kill switch. Using this option would alert the user that they may be disconnected from the network if a rogue application does cause problems that would otherwise have been removed using the kill switch. A good service for the average user, and an informed user for those that want the choice. And if they choose to ignore the warning and lose service, then that's their own fault..
Now the developers have actually gone and made money off that data, and now less than a dozen of the smallest targets are getting picked off.How on Earth is that fair?
Not to nitpick, but when has the world ever been fair?
I know a lot of people in their teens [snip]. Never has the word "GIMP" entered any of their vocabularies.
From the teenagers I've met I find that extremely hard to believe.
The oil companies for example are not paid by the government to run safe rigs and to clean up their spills, the government forces them to do that if they want to remain in the oil business.
They may require safe rigs and to clean up spills, but they don't expect the oil company to ensure all users of their oil aren't speeding or breaking the law in some other respect.
The ISP's are required to run a safe network that doesn't, say, electrocute anyone. If they dig up the roads to install more wires they're required to put the road back together afterwards, and so on. Expecting them to also police their network at an individual user level is not the same thing, and deserves compensation.
I made the change this morning, and I've just had to switch back due to issues I've had with my android phone. Switching to gmail.com causes numerous logins to fail because they attempt to do so using the googlemail.com login and are instead rejected. Changing the username on my phone involves resetting many of the default options and having to restore a load of data on it manually, so the best option was switching back to googlemail.com.
This isn't a problem for me, but just a heads up for those using android. Receiving mail using the gmail.com extension still works with the googlemail.com setting, I'm just unsure if you can send from a gmail.com login if you haven't made the switch.
It's not just social networking sites though. Virtually ANY site you use has one of these clauses, collects personal information about you that you expect to remain private. It's getting to the stage where if you want to use the internet (a large portion of it), you have to agree that the website can do whatever the hell they want with your data, even though they said they wouldn't.
Take slashdot for instance:
From http://geek.net/index.php/terms-of-use/
Geeknet reserves the right, at Geeknet's sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms periodically. Such modifications shall be effective immediately upon posting of the modified agreement to the website unless provided otherwise (e.g., when implementing major, substantive changes, Geeknet intends to provide users with up to fourteen days of advance notice). Your continued use of the Geeknet Sites following the posting of changes to these Terms will mean that you accept those changes.
From http://geek.net/privacy-statement
Geeknet reserves the right to update and change this Privacy Statement from time to time. If Geeknet makes material changes to its privacy practices, a prominent notice will be posted on this web page. Each time a user uses the Sites, the current version of the Privacy Statement applies. Accordingly, a user should check the date of this Privacy Statement (which appears at the top) and review for any changes since the last version. If a user does not agree to the Privacy Statement, the user should not use the Sites.
Unless it's a flaw directly within the messenger software rather than the user who clicked the link...Microsoft wasn't really involved...
I wouldn't say Microsoft was directly involved, but back when I used Windows XP and Window Live Messenger, no matter what I did I could never get Windows Live Messenger to open up a link in anything other than IE. It's been a while so things might have changed, but this "feature" could make them at least indirectly involved.
You are not the only one, I am a bandwidth leech and I agree that there should be limitations on my usage. What I disagree with though is that I am limited without being informed that it will happen. I also disagree with being lied to about it, and I also disagree with communications protocols being abused to limit me.
If they want to limit me, they need to make me aware that I will be limited for certain usages. They need to be precise and stick to their word about how and when, so that I as a consumer can choose which package will suit me and my usage needs. They need to stop selling "unlimited" packages, and then claiming I am overusing it. They need to limit my usage through the usage of correct protocol, and they need to be honest about it.
We are not greedy, we are simply using what we have paid for, and what we have been promised.
Instead of just not paying for it, don't watch it at all. Or don't listen to it.
If you don't like their tactics, do not provide them with an avenue to distribute their products.
At which point they will blame the lack of sales on piracy, and still push through laws for their own agenda.
I completely agree with your methods and reasoning, but in reality it probably won't solve anything. Life's unfair, and then you die.
I seriously have to ask, what is this guy on? Of course moving to multicore machines requires an OS rework. Frankly even windows has already been reworked to support this, and will continue to evolve in ways that prove beneficial. This is how development works, you gain a better understanding of the problem and then change things for the theoretical better then investigate then next holdup.
Why should you ever, with all this parallel hardware, ever be waiting for your computer?
Processing takes time. Chucking multiple cores at a problem doesn't magically make this time disappear. There are always physical limitations with the hardware available. Most of the delays you see nowadays in consumer applications (and others) are not from a lack of processing power, but instead from poor memory speed. For a processor to be able to do any real work it has to load all of the information from the hard drive into memory. Only then does the power of a single core come into play, and for a surprisingly short period of time. Even then accessing memory is an extremely slow operation, as information has to be brought into the caches, and written back/through to memory. The moment you start adding multiple cores on top of this, you suddenly start getting coherence issues between the caches, where one cache writes to data that is shared between the cores.
The OS could assign an application a CPU and some memory, and the program itself, using metadata generated by the compiler, would best know how to use these resources
Is he suggesting that you have as many CPU's as you do programs, each with their own high-speed caches. CPU's in general sit there idling for a large percentage of the time, and that's with multiprogramming already in place. Also, the caches are the most expensive form of memory, are consumers going to pay that price, for something where they'll still just have to wait for IO anyway? This just sounds like an extremely large waste of resources. The last part of that statement is also how things already work. Has this guy not heard of OpenMP before? Granted for the time being people are expected to include this metadata themselves, but this is an area of computing being highly researched, attempting to automate this process as much as possible. Most compilers already do this up to the point of static analysis, and many are gaining new abilities such as speculation to go further.
To get the full benefit from multiple cores, developers need to use parallel programming techniques. It remains a difficult discipline to master and hasn't been used much, outside of specialized scientific programs such as climate simulators.
It is difficult, but it's getting easier. Many programmers learnt to program in a sequential imperative way, it takes time to break out of these habits. It is also a discovery process as we don't entirely know how to make programs in parallel. Languages are adapting to aide this process (many functional languages for example) but they each have their own issues and limitations. These techniques are being widely used, but much of the problem is that consumer level programs don't actually have much parallelism to them. It becomes much more obvious for scientific programs as they are inherently parallel. Again, compilers are making great strides in automating this process for the programmer.
You don't want to wait for Microsoft Word to get started because the antivirus program chose that moment to start scanning all your files. Most OSes have some priority scheduling to avoid these bottlenecks, but they are still crude
So think about the specifics of how the hardware itself is going to react to what you're asking and work on a better scheduling mechanism?
In this approach, the operating system would no longer resemble the kernel mode of today's OSes, but rather act more like a hypervisor. A concept from virtualization, a hypervi
A more important question though, is how on earth do you last two months with only a 4 pack of toilet paper?
One up, one down, and one to polish off
They've still won. Their art is intact as you don't have single songs but instead whole albums. That was their point.
And pink floyd have openly opposed new piracy legislation. As has been said over and over again, this isn't about money.
The pure Java foundation of Android
Android is not java. Yes it has java aspects but it is not java! It's bits of java with a customized Android API.It doesn't even run a normal JVM, it runs the Dalvik VM.
Not only that, but all of the code from other Java programs will run on your Android phone
Seriously, no. Just... no. Try compiling a program that uses Swing, AWT or javax stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Android and hate iPhones. I have a G1 (lacking on RAM as much as it is). I've programmed for android although for fun, not the marketplace. I've even made my own ROM, again for fun. But claiming Android is Java and that everything that Java can do Android can also do natively is just naive
Why oh why must they force the integration of Google Buzz and Google Reader? I use google reader every day, often share things with various contacts, and read things that have been shared with me. It was awesome. Then Google Buzz came along and forced integration of the two. I don't want Google Buzz but if I go ahead and remove it, it'll remove the sharing abilities I had within Google Reader. I understand the possible benefit of having the two connected, by choice, but without choice Google is simply screwing up one of their actually decent products!