Then use a different app store. If you are not a dumb user, you should be able to manually install one app. And I believe I CAN trust the Android Market to (at least try to) make the right decisions. Because, if they don't, then people (including me) will stop using them. That is the advantage of allowing (and encouraging) competition.
It seems you want the Android Marketplace to be OK for everyone, but good for no-one (or very few). I prefer it be good for most people and terrible for some. But, for those people there should be other, easily accessible, options that are good for them. I don't want the "don't be evil" motto to have to be enforced on Google (either internally or externally). I much prefer they set up their business models so it is in their best interest not to be "evil".
Uh... no. Moving to another country takes a lot of time and money and effort. And you have to leave all of your friends, family, and connections behind. Installing another repository is as easy as installing another app and going about your business.
I don't see the hypocrisy. People want their experience to be managed. Apple does a good job at it. Google is, in my opinion, doing a decent job. Where "good" versus "bad" comes in is that if you don't like the "Apple Experience", then your only option is to buy a different phone. And if they decide to change the experience to something you don't like after you have bought the phone from them, you are SOL - no refund. If you don't like the "Google Experience", you can create your own. You can even modify their experience by installing apps that they don't support. If their experience changes to something you don't like, then you still have the option of modifying the experience to suit you, or creating your own. Basically, the Apple App Store is a monopoly, so they have to try very hard not to be "bad" (and they don't seem to try very hard). Android Marketplace is not a monopoly, so if they piss off their users enough, the users will just use someone else.
I don't trust 90% of users to make intelligent decisions about what software they install. With Android, you can use the Android Marketplace and they will try to protect the stupid users from themselves. For everyone else, if there is an app you want that Android Market does not trust, then just install it manually. You have the option of choosing a third party marketplace or manual installs if you don't want to be in their "walled garden".
Or, just don't use Android Marketplace. Find a third party marketplace that would be willing to let you keep malicious apps on your phone. Or, start your own. Or, install all your apps directly from the web instead of going through a marketplace.
But, if Apple where to uninstall the app from your phone, you would be SOL. With android, you just go onto the web and download it. Lets compare oranges to oranges here. If the Android Market business model does not suit your needs, you can go to a third party marketplace. You can find one that has the tradeoff of security and flexibility that matches your own. You can't do that with Apple.
Its very easy to "disable" it. Don't use the Android Marketplace. Either use a third party marketplace or install the apps directly from the web. If you don't trust Android Marketplace to decide which apps should be "trusted" and which shouldn't, then go find someone you do trust.
Why do you use Android Marketplace? Why not just install all your apps directly from the web, or use a third party marketplace? I use Android Marketplace because I trust them to filter out malicious apps. When they realize that one got through when it shouldn't have, I am fine with them removing it from my phone. But don't try to force them to change (or accuse them of being evil) when there are people who consider that a valuable service. The only time when I would consider something like this immoral is if they are the only option for getting apps (like Apple). But, they aren't. So if you don't like the service they provide, go find another service.
If you are using a "Trusted Content Provider" and they decide that the content is no longer "trusted", then yes, I think it is morally within their rights to delete it. If you really want the app, then install it manually or use a third party marketplace who balances security vs flexibility correctly for you.
Unlike Apple, though, Android Marketplace is not the sole gateway for putting apps onto your phone. If the Android Marketplace gets to uppity, the free market will slap them down by users USING OTHER MARKETPLACES. I think this is the right way to do this, actually. If you want a protected, safe phone, then use the default options. If you don't, then you can go find a third party marketplace that has the correct tradeoff of security and flexibility for you. I would be perfectly fine with the Android Marketplace being worse than the Apple App Store, because if it is not right for me, it is easy to find another one who is.
And I call it a non-malicious feature. They are a "trusted content provider". If the content is not trusted, I do not want it on my phone. Why shouldn't I be able to have this feature that I consider valuable? If you don't like the feature set of of the Android Marketplace, then go find another marketplace or create your own. This is the advantage of Android. If the Android Marketplace were to become the same as the Apple Apps Store, then the free market would punish them by all of their users going to different marketplaces.
You can download your apps from anywhere you want. If you download it through the Android Marketplace and they find out that they lied to you by saying the app you downloaded complied with their terms of service, then I am fine with them taking it back. I can always go to the web and install it myself. The difference is, I download apps from Android Marketplace without researching to make sure that it isn't a virus because I trust that they will try to only distribute legitimate apps. I always check out apps I get from the web, though, because they do not have the Android Marketplace reputation supporting them.
What you call a bug, I call a feature. The fact that the Android Marketplace is protecting my phone (or at least trying to) makes me more likely to use it. Vote with your feet. Use a third party market. Start your own if you think you can run it "better" than google. This freedom and competition is what makes Android great. But, the fact is (unlike the iPhone) you do have alternatives, so Android Marketplace should try to implement the features/bugs that make the largest group of users happy and let the free market sort out the rest.
The difference is that you can go back onto your android phone and go find the application online and install it. It doesn't cost you any money. All you lose is a few minutes of your time. And, you are explicitly taking ownership of the consequences of using the app (you can't complain when your private data gets stolen that you never saw the popup).
Your PHONE COMPANY says that if you don't use the PHONE COMPANY's flavor of the android OS then the PHONE COMPANY will not honor its warranty. Maybe you should use a different PHONE COMPANY.
In case you didn't get my point, this is a problem with your phone company, not the android OS. My question is how would you propose for the Android Project to fix this for you? Should they FORCE the phone companies to support all flavors of the OS? Would this make Android more open and flexible?
If you don't like it, then don't use the android market. If you really want the app, then go find it on the internet and install it. Android market is providing a service. Not only do they provide a repository for applications, they also filter the applications for their users. I am fine with them filtering however they want, because there are alternatives. If you don't like their service, then don't use it.
I choose to buy my phone from someone else. AT&T uses SIM cards. I bought my G1 on ebay and popped in my SIM card. Everything worked just fine. (Well, I am still on AT&T so everything is not exactly "fine", but at least they don't have any control over my phone).
OK... fine. Not coal. I was only using that as an example. I don't know how much coal reserves they have anyway. But what about oil? Libya is one of the top 10 producers of oil in the world. Or natural gas. These are still not renewable energy sources. Whats to stop them from using a power plant that burns oil? I can't even find a source that gives me a percentage of electricity produced by solar power. If solar were actually as cost effective as you claim, wouldn't they already be using it? Why would they use oil, which is a very valuable export? You claim that the environmentalists were completely out of line to be concerned about how the power would actually be produced. Show me evidence that solar actually is the most cost effective way of producing power in the region. Because if any other method is cheaper, then, if there is no oversight, that is what will be produced.
Well for the most part I do not like groups that just pipe up with "They could cheat and that is terrible" it is not productive.
I disagree. I think it is ALWAYS better to have a civil and intelligent debate on the actual issues rather than basing your decision solely on buzzwords ("Did he say it was GREEN? Lets do it!"). Also, I only saw where they say "They could cheat" but I did not see anywhere where it was followed by "and that is terrible". They just stated a fact and you seem to have an interest in discrediting the facts as opposed to countering it with facts of your own.
I also don't have any real issue with them building and using natural gas plants. Natural gas has a much smaller carbon foot print than coal. Not perfect but better than coal and I am all for improvement where I can find it.
If that is their intention, they should say so and I might support them. But they didn't say it. And if they are not going to be honest about that, why should I believe them in anything else? And, what leads you to believe that they would use natural gas and not coal.
Mainly I just find the negative outlook of the environmentalists to be just really counter productive. Instead of saying, "This is great! and this how we can make sure that it works they way we all want it to." They start off well they could just cheat...
How do you know. This article did not link to actual quotes. They could have had a 30 minute press release on how much they think this is a good idea, and then in the last 2 minutes mentioned their concerns. You don't know because all you hear is what the press decides is interesting (and even I don't think a third party environmental group singing the praises of a "GREEN" project is interesting). You are making a lot of assumptions to support you biases.
Over all I have no faith in environmentalist groups at all. They have full time paid employees and they earn money by scaring people into donating. All too often they fly off half cocked over things that are not a danger. They are the classic case of the boy that cries wolf.
See above. The media loves to report on the extremists. Maybe you should check primary sources. Think for yourself instead of letting the pundits think for you.
So, you are fine with that scenario? You would be willing to have your tax dollars used to build an undersea power cable but have it end up being used to ship power from another country that could be made in the exact same way in your own country, probably more efficiently? It might save you a few cents on your power bill, but that money would be going to a foreign country instead of stimulating your own economy. Also, the reasons it would be cheaper is that African countries would probably have cheaper labor and more lax pollution and safety standards. So, not only would the power not be renewable like you were promised, it would probably pollute more, kill more people, and cost your country tax-dollars.
You see, if it terminated in coal-fired plant, someone would have to pay to have coal delivered all the way out to the middle of the fucking Sahara desert. On a regular basis.
But, can you say it would be more expensive than a solar powered plant? Developing countries can provide things pretty cheaply. Especially when they don't have to conform to pollution and safety standards.
Nobody has figured out how to put a meter on sunlight yet, and it just shows up on-site.
So how do you know that the power you are getting is from the Solar power plant and not the Coal-Fired one? Especially in a corrupt 3rd world country?
That might be one deterrent to building a coal-fired plant.
Or, you could require some sort of proof that the renewable energy being sold to you was actually created renewably. Which I am sure is what the "environmentalists" were angling for. That would also be a deterrent to the coal-fired plant.
Or, we could just trust that the politicians, corporations, and African governments will just do the "Right Thing".
I am not saying I know for sure that the system would be abused. It might actually turn out that the solar power is cheaper than coal power. But, I also don't know it WON'T be abused, and, if it were my tax money, I would not want to leave it to chance.
Some environmental groups have warned these cables could be used instead to import non-renewable electricity from coal- and gas-fired power stations in north Africa.
You propose a valid solution. As long as the amount of power going to Europe is less than the amount of renewable power going onto that grid, I think the environmentalists would be happy. I do not have faith, though, that would actually turn out to be the case if someone does not watch to make sure it happens (in this case the "environmentalists"). What makes you think that their concerns are unfounded ( why do you think the required number renewable electricity resources would be put in without someone watching to make sure it happens )?
You seem to think that the "environmentalist's point is invalid...
So, you think it would be fine if this undersea cable were sold to the public on the idea that it would bring renewable energy into Europe, but instead was connected to fossil fuel power plants that could just as easily be built in Europe (without spending all of that money on the cable)? I am interpreting your statement as... "It is OK if politicians waste my hard-earned tax dollars as long as they lie to me and say that it is good for the environment, even if it isn't." Please tell me how I have misinterpreted your statement.
If the article said that the purpose was to develop Africa, then that would be fine. But, the purpose is to get renewable energy. You are just muddying the issue.
Also, overpopulation is solved by prosperity. As prosperity increases, the birth rate generally decreases.
Mod me down, if your cognitive structures start moving dangerously.
Your arguments are crap... So should I mod you up?
Slashdot Mirror
Then use a different app store. If you are not a dumb user, you should be able to manually install one app. And I believe I CAN trust the Android Market to (at least try to) make the right decisions. Because, if they don't, then people (including me) will stop using them. That is the advantage of allowing (and encouraging) competition.
It seems you want the Android Marketplace to be OK for everyone, but good for no-one (or very few). I prefer it be good for most people and terrible for some. But, for those people there should be other, easily accessible, options that are good for them. I don't want the "don't be evil" motto to have to be enforced on Google (either internally or externally). I much prefer they set up their business models so it is in their best interest not to be "evil".
Uh... no. Moving to another country takes a lot of time and money and effort. And you have to leave all of your friends, family, and connections behind. Installing another repository is as easy as installing another app and going about your business.
I don't see the hypocrisy. People want their experience to be managed. Apple does a good job at it. Google is, in my opinion, doing a decent job. Where "good" versus "bad" comes in is that if you don't like the "Apple Experience", then your only option is to buy a different phone. And if they decide to change the experience to something you don't like after you have bought the phone from them, you are SOL - no refund. If you don't like the "Google Experience", you can create your own. You can even modify their experience by installing apps that they don't support. If their experience changes to something you don't like, then you still have the option of modifying the experience to suit you, or creating your own. Basically, the Apple App Store is a monopoly, so they have to try very hard not to be "bad" (and they don't seem to try very hard). Android Marketplace is not a monopoly, so if they piss off their users enough, the users will just use someone else.
No jailbreak necessary. Which is what makes Android "open" and Apple "not".
Did you manage to get a discount on service from AT&T not having to provide and subsidize a handset for you?
I am on a family plan, so I don't think I get a discount. But, I am not locked into a contract (which is worth something to me).
Some people like to have a manufacturer's warranty so that just in case it breaks on day 8, the replacement cost is covered.
You can usually buy a phone directly from the manufacturer. For example, the Nexus One.
I don't trust 90% of users to make intelligent decisions about what software they install. With Android, you can use the Android Marketplace and they will try to protect the stupid users from themselves. For everyone else, if there is an app you want that Android Market does not trust, then just install it manually. You have the option of choosing a third party marketplace or manual installs if you don't want to be in their "walled garden".
Or, just don't use Android Marketplace. Find a third party marketplace that would be willing to let you keep malicious apps on your phone. Or, start your own. Or, install all your apps directly from the web instead of going through a marketplace.
But, if Apple where to uninstall the app from your phone, you would be SOL. With android, you just go onto the web and download it. Lets compare oranges to oranges here. If the Android Market business model does not suit your needs, you can go to a third party marketplace. You can find one that has the tradeoff of security and flexibility that matches your own. You can't do that with Apple.
Its very easy to "disable" it. Don't use the Android Marketplace. Either use a third party marketplace or install the apps directly from the web. If you don't trust Android Marketplace to decide which apps should be "trusted" and which shouldn't, then go find someone you do trust.
Why do you use Android Marketplace? Why not just install all your apps directly from the web, or use a third party marketplace? I use Android Marketplace because I trust them to filter out malicious apps. When they realize that one got through when it shouldn't have, I am fine with them removing it from my phone. But don't try to force them to change (or accuse them of being evil) when there are people who consider that a valuable service. The only time when I would consider something like this immoral is if they are the only option for getting apps (like Apple). But, they aren't. So if you don't like the service they provide, go find another service.
If you are using a "Trusted Content Provider" and they decide that the content is no longer "trusted", then yes, I think it is morally within their rights to delete it. If you really want the app, then install it manually or use a third party marketplace who balances security vs flexibility correctly for you.
Unlike Apple, though, Android Marketplace is not the sole gateway for putting apps onto your phone. If the Android Marketplace gets to uppity, the free market will slap them down by users USING OTHER MARKETPLACES. I think this is the right way to do this, actually. If you want a protected, safe phone, then use the default options. If you don't, then you can go find a third party marketplace that has the correct tradeoff of security and flexibility for you. I would be perfectly fine with the Android Marketplace being worse than the Apple App Store, because if it is not right for me, it is easy to find another one who is.
And I call it a non-malicious feature. They are a "trusted content provider". If the content is not trusted, I do not want it on my phone. Why shouldn't I be able to have this feature that I consider valuable? If you don't like the feature set of of the Android Marketplace, then go find another marketplace or create your own. This is the advantage of Android. If the Android Marketplace were to become the same as the Apple Apps Store, then the free market would punish them by all of their users going to different marketplaces.
You can download your apps from anywhere you want. If you download it through the Android Marketplace and they find out that they lied to you by saying the app you downloaded complied with their terms of service, then I am fine with them taking it back. I can always go to the web and install it myself. The difference is, I download apps from Android Marketplace without researching to make sure that it isn't a virus because I trust that they will try to only distribute legitimate apps. I always check out apps I get from the web, though, because they do not have the Android Marketplace reputation supporting them.
What you call a bug, I call a feature. The fact that the Android Marketplace is protecting my phone (or at least trying to) makes me more likely to use it. Vote with your feet. Use a third party market. Start your own if you think you can run it "better" than google. This freedom and competition is what makes Android great. But, the fact is (unlike the iPhone) you do have alternatives, so Android Marketplace should try to implement the features/bugs that make the largest group of users happy and let the free market sort out the rest.
The difference is that you can go back onto your android phone and go find the application online and install it. It doesn't cost you any money. All you lose is a few minutes of your time. And, you are explicitly taking ownership of the consequences of using the app (you can't complain when your private data gets stolen that you never saw the popup).
I am if I want to keep my warranty officially...
Your PHONE COMPANY says that if you don't use the PHONE COMPANY's flavor of the android OS then the PHONE COMPANY will not honor its warranty. Maybe you should use a different PHONE COMPANY.
In case you didn't get my point, this is a problem with your phone company, not the android OS. My question is how would you propose for the Android Project to fix this for you? Should they FORCE the phone companies to support all flavors of the OS? Would this make Android more open and flexible?
If you don't like it, then don't use the android market. If you really want the app, then go find it on the internet and install it. Android market is providing a service. Not only do they provide a repository for applications, they also filter the applications for their users. I am fine with them filtering however they want, because there are alternatives. If you don't like their service, then don't use it.
I choose to buy my phone from someone else. AT&T uses SIM cards. I bought my G1 on ebay and popped in my SIM card. Everything worked just fine. (Well, I am still on AT&T so everything is not exactly "fine", but at least they don't have any control over my phone).
OK... fine. Not coal. I was only using that as an example. I don't know how much coal reserves they have anyway. But what about oil? Libya is one of the top 10 producers of oil in the world. Or natural gas. These are still not renewable energy sources. Whats to stop them from using a power plant that burns oil? I can't even find a source that gives me a percentage of electricity produced by solar power. If solar were actually as cost effective as you claim, wouldn't they already be using it? Why would they use oil, which is a very valuable export? You claim that the environmentalists were completely out of line to be concerned about how the power would actually be produced. Show me evidence that solar actually is the most cost effective way of producing power in the region. Because if any other method is cheaper, then, if there is no oversight, that is what will be produced.
Well for the most part I do not like groups that just pipe up with "They could cheat and that is terrible" it is not productive.
I disagree. I think it is ALWAYS better to have a civil and intelligent debate on the actual issues rather than basing your decision solely on buzzwords ("Did he say it was GREEN? Lets do it!"). Also, I only saw where they say "They could cheat" but I did not see anywhere where it was followed by "and that is terrible". They just stated a fact and you seem to have an interest in discrediting the facts as opposed to countering it with facts of your own.
I also don't have any real issue with them building and using natural gas plants. Natural gas has a much smaller carbon foot print than coal. Not perfect but better than coal and I am all for improvement where I can find it.
If that is their intention, they should say so and I might support them. But they didn't say it. And if they are not going to be honest about that, why should I believe them in anything else? And, what leads you to believe that they would use natural gas and not coal.
Mainly I just find the negative outlook of the environmentalists to be just really counter productive. Instead of saying, "This is great! and this how we can make sure that it works they way we all want it to." They start off well they could just cheat...
How do you know. This article did not link to actual quotes. They could have had a 30 minute press release on how much they think this is a good idea, and then in the last 2 minutes mentioned their concerns. You don't know because all you hear is what the press decides is interesting (and even I don't think a third party environmental group singing the praises of a "GREEN" project is interesting). You are making a lot of assumptions to support you biases.
Over all I have no faith in environmentalist groups at all. They have full time paid employees and they earn money by scaring people into donating. All too often they fly off half cocked over things that are not a danger. They are the classic case of the boy that cries wolf.
See above. The media loves to report on the extremists. Maybe you should check primary sources. Think for yourself instead of letting the pundits think for you.
Umm? Ok?
So, you are fine with that scenario? You would be willing to have your tax dollars used to build an undersea power cable but have it end up being used to ship power from another country that could be made in the exact same way in your own country, probably more efficiently? It might save you a few cents on your power bill, but that money would be going to a foreign country instead of stimulating your own economy. Also, the reasons it would be cheaper is that African countries would probably have cheaper labor and more lax pollution and safety standards. So, not only would the power not be renewable like you were promised, it would probably pollute more, kill more people, and cost your country tax-dollars.
You see, if it terminated in coal-fired plant, someone would have to pay to have coal delivered all the way out to the middle of the fucking Sahara desert. On a regular basis.
But, can you say it would be more expensive than a solar powered plant? Developing countries can provide things pretty cheaply. Especially when they don't have to conform to pollution and safety standards.
Nobody has figured out how to put a meter on sunlight yet, and it just shows up on-site.
So how do you know that the power you are getting is from the Solar power plant and not the Coal-Fired one? Especially in a corrupt 3rd world country?
That might be one deterrent to building a coal-fired plant.
Or, you could require some sort of proof that the renewable energy being sold to you was actually created renewably. Which I am sure is what the "environmentalists" were angling for. That would also be a deterrent to the coal-fired plant.
Or, we could just trust that the politicians, corporations, and African governments will just do the "Right Thing".
I am not saying I know for sure that the system would be abused. It might actually turn out that the solar power is cheaper than coal power. But, I also don't know it WON'T be abused, and, if it were my tax money, I would not want to leave it to chance.
No, its more like being raped in a club and being forced to come back.
Some environmental groups have warned these cables could be used instead to import non-renewable electricity from coal- and gas-fired power stations in north Africa.
You propose a valid solution. As long as the amount of power going to Europe is less than the amount of renewable power going onto that grid, I think the environmentalists would be happy. I do not have faith, though, that would actually turn out to be the case if someone does not watch to make sure it happens (in this case the "environmentalists"). What makes you think that their concerns are unfounded ( why do you think the required number renewable electricity resources would be put in without someone watching to make sure it happens )?
You seem to think that the "environmentalist's point is invalid...
So, you think it would be fine if this undersea cable were sold to the public on the idea that it would bring renewable energy into Europe, but instead was connected to fossil fuel power plants that could just as easily be built in Europe (without spending all of that money on the cable)? I am interpreting your statement as... "It is OK if politicians waste my hard-earned tax dollars as long as they lie to me and say that it is good for the environment, even if it isn't." Please tell me how I have misinterpreted your statement.
If the article said that the purpose was to develop Africa, then that would be fine. But, the purpose is to get renewable energy. You are just muddying the issue.
Also, overpopulation is solved by prosperity. As prosperity increases, the birth rate generally decreases.
Mod me down, if your cognitive structures start moving dangerously.
Your arguments are crap... So should I mod you up?