Other people (esp. if they are government employees) will manage to screw up the redaction in some manner that makes the information recoverable
Not a monopoly of the govt bureacrats, though, even if I admit they excel at it Recent history show similar cases with non-govt entities... stop here, I won't name them, don't want flames.
Remember folks... checks are legal instruments and contain confidential bank account numbers printed on them, which (due to our insecure banking system) can easily be abused by scammers to steal lots of money. Never post an image for public consumption of a check someone else wrote to you.
Or, at least, not if you care maintaining a good relation with that someone. I know, I know, not very moral of me.
Should I add the annoying behavior of not being able, most of the time, to copy/paste when posting in/. using Chrome? ( granted, maybe it's/.'s fault, but is so much easier to shoot at a bigger target. Besides, is not polite to blame the host, is it?;) )
1) Convince Microsoft to adopt similar bug strategy.
2) Start using software as it was designed to be used...
3) PROFIT!!
Yes, that's right. No step 4.
Step 2 is somehow flawed. Google paid the bounty for the security bugs and for Chrome only.
MS:
1. has a bigger "impact cross-section" thus won;t afford to pay too much for a bug leading to a 0-day exploit;
2. there is a stiff competition in the matter of monetary rewards for finding 0-days exploits (hint: some entities in a country used to be known as Soviet...). If somebody jumps into the game as a beginner and stay in the game long enough to be proficient in finding bugs, my bet... because of point 1 above, it won't take long to present her/his CV to the competition
But beware, this is the sort of behavior that they want such lock down for. Not for your security, but to deliberately limit the lifespan of your device and make you buy a new one.
They don't care if you buy a new device. Except for T-Mobile, none of the carriers will give you a discount on your monthly bill once your service contract is up. Since most to all of the cost of a new phone is subsidized by your monthly bill, it makes little to no difference whether you buy a new phone or stick with your old one - you're still paying the subsidy.
In fact, I'd postulate that they make more money if you stick with your old phone. With a new phone, at least your subsidy payment is going to the phone manufacturer to help pay for the new phone you're holding. If you don't upgrade and continue using your old phone out of contract, the subsidy is going straight into the service provider's pockets.
For now, and only because the phones are expensive. It won't last foerever though, and this is where I thank Google... injected a bit of competition in a iPhone/Nokia/Blackbery market (in which the manufacturer of the phone was in mainly in control of both hardware and the OS). I cannot exclude a convergence between the netbooks and smart-phones driving the prices down (fer God sake, a decent netbook/ereader is in the $300-400 range, where does the extra of $200-300 comes into the picture for a smart-phone - essentialy a smaller netbook).
The problem is that firmware/rom is considered hardware, so expecting Samsung, Nokia, Apple, etc to repair a trashed firmware is no different from environmental damage or putting a bullet through it.
For now... for some time in the future as well... I don't thing that this will go forever, though.
Honestly, I hear all this about "Android fragmentation" and how terrible it is, but all it really seems to amount to is that people always want the phone they could have bought six months after they bought theirs. We've had that problem with computers for years.
Wholly agree. It would be similar with speaking, back in the '80-'90, of an "IBM PC market fragmentation" and presented in opposition the "monolithical market of Macintosh computers": haven't heard of it at that time, doesn't ring any truer now for the Android case (and the results of a de-facto situation could be easily seen some years later. Apple should keep inventing to avoid its fate during '90-ies)
I'm not excluding that, some years in the future, there would be alternative OS-es for the phones that will be still be accepted by the telco - e.g. no longer telco dictate the terms, they only provide the link and charge you for it. There's only the matter of network capacity which keeps one bound to telcos as they are now, sort of AOL vs the Internet, the moment in which the big telcos will be just carriers (like the current ISP-es), it'll be really an open playground.
The good thing about Android is that it's open and anyone can add features, customizations, etc. to it.
The bad thing about Android is that the manufacturers and the carriers usually end up raping it and making it a worse experience.
The ugly part is that Google doesn't seem to care all that much and is perfectly willing to put up with this kind of crap.
Good heavens, I'm glad Google doesn't care. Because if it would start to care, the risk of becoming very bad from ugly only it high: I think there's enough of a single "God" in this sky (the one that paints everything iWhite), a bit of diversity is good. Shop careful for your smart-phone and picking the devices that allows you the good will sort the bad and ugly by the "vote with your wallet" - just like my father used to say.
The problem isn't us, it's the neighbor down the street that thinks of their phone as a simple tool, who doesn't have the skills to get around what the carrier or manufacturer wants, and is wondering why they don't get updates like iOS and computers in general get.
I fail to see why the neighbor-down-the-street's problems become my (or, for the matter, your) problem? How the fact the he doesn't get updates affects you or me?
Because if it doesn't, letting aside being a nice person that emphatise so easily with the electric-sheep-down-the-street, why would I care?
So where's the phone for adults who have their own cars and pay for their own pizzas? And have keys to their own houses?
If you are such an adult, chances are that you can arrange one for youself. Take a non-network locked smart-phone (which does allow you to root it), pick your carrier and use it for data only, get a Skype number.
Sure you can afford all the above, you are an adult, aren't you?
The Nokia fanboys at least consistent with their beliefs of freedom.
Ah, BTW, on the "spew nonsense" line - the "fanboy" is yet another red-flag.
I already admitted that I didn't buy any smart-phone, but I decided that I'll wait-and-see, and I'm too old to base my buying decision on "coolness/fanboysm" or anything like that. The way I see, your veiled accusation above is gratuitous and actually a flamebite.
Does it make sense, or do I need to elaborate more, honey-bunny?
(kindly asking you to drop the absolute when saying "spew nonsense" and replace it with "spew something that doesn't make sense to me... this way we'll be completely cool and I can concentrate on trying to explain myself without starting to shoot. Are we cool, honey-bunny?).
Why are you supporting Google in this matter?
To answer your question straight: because the alternative (Google starting to impose contraints) is far more dangerous than having me coping with the "pain of choice" in a concurential market and the law of "vote with my wallet".
Google's licensing deals are toxic for the future of the Android platform.
Debatable... but even if you are right, I argue that Google is in its right to do it and it is actually good that it does so.
Preliminaries: Android is truly an Open Source OS with no string attached and Google's only "property" stay in the Android OS. It is/was your choice to enter in a contract with a 3rd party entity that limits what you can do with Android. I think that you will agree with how I presented the current situation, so I'll share with you my opinions on why I think Google choice does make sense and it's actually good for me:
1. it makes legal and business sense because Google doesn't want to become an OEM and telco provider. From which it derives: Google doesn't want to take the pains of entering in a legally binding contract with the end-consumers. This way, Google can take care to maximize the profit for their shareholders and take care of my interest in relation with Android by having the updates available whenever there are security problems.
2. In my mind, it does also make moral/ethical/yro sense as well. Do you want really want Google to arbitrate and determine your interest and determine what is good or bad for you beyond the Android OS? Isn't Steve Jobs enough of a "God" already? Speaking for me, I'm quite careful what I wish for and I'm quite affraid of a point in which Google will start "arbitrating" instead of letting the customers look for their own interest and act as mature persons in relation with the entities that wronged them (and, the way I see, it is the OEM/telcos that wronged you, not Google).
Defending Google is far from my mind, I'm actually quite affraid of it (and, in my opinion, you should too). I'm pretty pleased to see that Google has the common-sense to stay out of the problem and see after the interest of its shareholders instead of my interest: I'm pretty capable of taking care myself, thank you.
Letting aside the use of "you/your" in the above (instead of a more impersonal "one/one's"), does it make sense now?
Sorry, but no. While in theory it's a valid point, it would still be Google's decision as to whether a handset should receive an upgrade. Nothing in Google's contracts with the carriers or the manufacturers would prevent Google from holding back an upgrade.
While you may be right when assessing the situation from the moral/ethical point of view, trying to blame Google from a legal/contractual point of view has no basis, really. Google has no legally binding contract with you (to protect you or your interest), so it is free to do as it chooses (and support the consequences the free market brings on them as the result of their choices).
If you think that, legally, what Samsung or AT&T do to you is a breach of contract, it is NOT Google to arbitrate or impose something on OEM or telco: methinks there still are "Consumer protection" agencies and courts of justice dealing with these matters in your country, are they not? Put up a class-suit and OEM/telcos will be very careful next time (even if you setlle or loose). In a competitive free market, bad publicity is still bad publicity.
Why do you feel the need of Google to "act as God"? Isn't one Steve Jobs enough on the market already? Why would we need a pathoen of Gods?
So why are you paying that price and not the OEM or the network vendor?
My right to pay whatever price I choose, as it is yours.
The prices you pay kind of suck [in my opinion]. You paid them for the phone. Google fucked up because they should've strong armed OEMs into providing proper and timely updates.
Also, what's the difference between SenseUI in say, Donut or Eclair that isn't in say, FroYo or Gingerbread?
How the hell should I know? I reserved my freedom not to buy any of the smart-phones until the mud setlles. I'm far beyond the age of "early adopters for coolness reasons". I'll give it another 6 months-1 year and reconsider. Until then, I'll keep reading/. for TFA of this nature, they are interesting to me for the very reasons above.
This is one of those rare posts that made me see the situation differently. Thank you for that.
Too kind, thanks for the compliment.
The only thing I would add is that vendors like Samsung should still have an obligation to at least backport security fixes. If noncommercial Linux distributions like Debian can summon up the skill and time to do that, so can the wireless carriers. They can then balance the expense of backporting security fixes versus the expense of determining whether an upgrade really breaks anything and whether that can be mitigated.
Just pointing out some differences between Android and Debian distribution: pay attention to the eco-system and the interests. Here's an example (in which I let the content providers/DRM issue aside).
1. Android: device manufacturers (interested in deprecating the HW models faster), telecom/carriers (interested in minimizing the cost of transmission/necessary infrastructure for "over the air" upgrades), consumers (interested in paying less, have the lastest OS, stay secure)
2. Debian distribution: no HW providers, carriers (now) almost indifferent to traffic quota
related with updates, consumers with the same interest.
The landscape is much too different for Google act as like the Debian stewards do and try to enforce the rules. I guess Google choice of "anti-objects programming"*** is still legitimate: even Google cannot afford to fight everybody and still pose as a pioneer for openness.
After all... here's the interesting question... "Is it possible to impose constraints to allow freedom to prosper"? The exercise of democracy shows it is somehow possible, but the contraints vs freedom balancing act is awfuly full of perils (as the post-9/11 era and the more accute Wikileaks crisis clearly demonstrate - the obligatory quote with "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" does fit in this context).
*** The "Anti-object programming" metaphor: Google specifies a number of the "rules of the game" and, I guess, chooses the minimal number of rules that would still allow the Android ecosystem to grow ("evolutionary" approach). Apple is "object oriented", keeping strict in control what their "objects" behave and how they evolve ("intelligent creation" approach).
PS. My apologies for bringing so many hot/. topics under the same post (only the "Global warming" is missing?), it is a result of a too long period of C++ template meta-programming (I'm dreaming patterns already, kid you not), coffee and long periods of waiting the solutions to compile (in which I have plenty of spare time to read/.). Finally, here a cliche as an apotheosis for all the above: time for me to get a life. ;) for those too tempted, save your sarcasm: I have a home on my own... and no, it doesn't have a basement;).
There's no reason that Google couldn't include rules like "No DRM" or "Upgrades must be allowed." That would certainly make it more open.
But they didn't do that.
Because it is technically impossible - in the general case - to impose the "Upgrades must be allowed" - it would be akin to ask "Run Linux kernel 2.6 and latest XWindows on a x486 with 16 MB RAM" only because Linux (can't recall the version) used to run quite nicely on such a machine back in 1993-ish.
However, given the many competing device manufacturers, I believe the balance between the rights of vendors and the rights of consumers will stabilize on a more normal situation in time. For the time being, I think Android is a young platform (younger than iPhone and Blackberry anyway), we are seeing "transient" regimes ("growth pains" rather than "artritis pains").
Hows all that "open platform" "not locked to a walled garden" "no need to jailbreak" Android working out for all the people that rant and rave against the iPhone?
Bitter-sweet like the real-world freedom:
a. "fragmentation" still allow for choices. As always, freedom is not gratis, always come with a price (as anything in this world).
b. one of the sweet consequences: having many competing device manufacturers and the free-flow of information, I can still pick a phone from a manufacturer with less restrictive OS upgrade policies. Can the iPhone owners do the same?
And to answer to your (potential) question: "what about those that cannot afford to pay the price for their freedom"? Well, I'll argue that they are in the very same situation as an iPhone owner (no better but again not worse). Is this enough of an argument why relying on Android (in general) is better then on iPhone?
That people are (a) running devices that are open to attack, and (b) are able to connect such devices to any Pentagon network, is seriously pathetic.
With the current security landscape, this boils down, essentially, to:
(a) People are using computing devices
(b) Some computers are able to connect to the Pentagon network
Best solution... Pentagon to drop the reliance on computers. Errr... wait... and paper too (because the Pentagon papers were... well... on paper).
Furthermore if a certain other company tried this stunt (cough;Microsoft) with their favorite codec (drop all support except WMV) everybody would be up in arms, saying they are trying to gain a monopolistic advantage over competition.
First, to gain a monopolistic advantage, you actually need a monopoly, and Chrome - unlike Windows or IE - is far from it.
Oh yeah? Even not a monopoly, YouTube seems to be significant enough. Wanna bet Google is going to drift away from h264 encoding in the near future?
... we will need to have every browser installed, because every other website on the intertubes will be using different technologies that are only supported by one browser.
Step 1. Name the biggest collection of the video clips on the intertubes
Step 2. Imagine a "nuke attack" in which the owner of that collection don't distribute them anymore in H.264 encoding
What I can however guarantee you: if you don't spend any on science, you finish burning the Quran as a civic duty or having laws that punish blasphemy by death. Is it better?
There's nothing about science in itself that leads to a more liberal society, Iran could produce nuclear weapons, it wouldn't stop them stoning someone to death.
The presence of science in a society, no. However, I argued that the absence of science in a modern society leads to a fundamentalistic religious social structure.
To pinpoint the failure in your argumentation: if "A=>B", it doesn't necessary follow that "non-A=>non-B", but it does follow that "non-B=>non-A". In this case, "If Iran's society would stop being fundamentalist, then the science must be present in their society" (granted, a bit of stretched... But if you replace "science" with "rational/critical thinking" the statement would be true).
The anti-hydrogen atoms were only stable in the particle-physicist sense - IIRC they lasted about 5 seconds. If someone's built an antimatter container that can keep it around for, say, long enough to fly it across the atlantic,...
Why? Would be US interested in importing anti-hydrogen? What for? Create an Anti H-bomb?
... that really is a new achievement.
So a partial achivement in 1995 is not good enough?
Slashdot Mirror
Other people (esp. if they are government employees) will manage to screw up the redaction in some manner that makes the information recoverable
Not a monopoly of the govt bureacrats, though, even if I admit they excel at it
Recent history show similar cases with non-govt entities... stop here, I won't name them, don't want flames.
Remember folks... checks are legal instruments and contain confidential bank account numbers printed on them, which (due to our insecure banking system) can easily be abused by scammers to steal lots of money. Never post an image for public consumption of a check someone else wrote to you.
Or, at least, not if you care maintaining a good relation with that someone.
I know, I know, not very moral of me.
Should I add the annoying behavior of not being able, most of the time, to copy/paste when posting in /. using Chrome? /.'s fault, but is so much easier to shoot at a bigger target. Besides, is not polite to blame the host, is it? ;) )
( granted, maybe it's
1) Convince Microsoft to adopt similar bug strategy.
2) Start using software as it was designed to be used...
3) PROFIT!!
Yes, that's right. No step 4.
Step 2 is somehow flawed. Google paid the bounty for the security bugs and for Chrome only.
MS:
1. has a bigger "impact cross-section" thus won;t afford to pay too much for a bug leading to a 0-day exploit;
2. there is a stiff competition in the matter of monetary rewards for finding 0-days exploits (hint: some entities in a country used to be known as Soviet...). If somebody jumps into the game as a beginner and stay in the game long enough to be proficient in finding bugs, my bet... because of point 1 above, it won't take long to present her/his CV to the competition
They don't care if you buy a new device. Except for T-Mobile, none of the carriers will give you a discount on your monthly bill once your service contract is up. Since most to all of the cost of a new phone is subsidized by your monthly bill, it makes little to no difference whether you buy a new phone or stick with your old one - you're still paying the subsidy.
In fact, I'd postulate that they make more money if you stick with your old phone. With a new phone, at least your subsidy payment is going to the phone manufacturer to help pay for the new phone you're holding. If you don't upgrade and continue using your old phone out of contract, the subsidy is going straight into the service provider's pockets.
For now, and only because the phones are expensive. It won't last foerever though, and this is where I thank Google... injected a bit of competition in a iPhone/Nokia/Blackbery market (in which the manufacturer of the phone was in mainly in control of both hardware and the OS). I cannot exclude a convergence between the netbooks and smart-phones driving the prices down (fer God sake, a decent netbook/ereader is in the $300-400 range, where does the extra of $200-300 comes into the picture for a smart-phone - essentialy a smaller netbook).
The problem is that firmware/rom is considered hardware, so expecting Samsung, Nokia, Apple, etc to repair a trashed firmware is no different from environmental damage or putting a bullet through it.
For now... for some time in the future as well... I don't thing that this will go forever, though.
Honestly, I hear all this about "Android fragmentation" and how terrible it is, but all it really seems to amount to is that people always want the phone they could have bought six months after they bought theirs. We've had that problem with computers for years.
Wholly agree. It would be similar with speaking, back in the '80-'90, of an "IBM PC market fragmentation" and presented in opposition the "monolithical market of Macintosh computers": haven't heard of it at that time, doesn't ring any truer now for the Android case (and the results of a de-facto situation could be easily seen some years later. Apple should keep inventing to avoid its fate during '90-ies)
I'm not excluding that, some years in the future, there would be alternative OS-es for the phones that will be still be accepted by the telco - e.g. no longer telco dictate the terms, they only provide the link and charge you for it. There's only the matter of network capacity which keeps one bound to telcos as they are now, sort of AOL vs the Internet, the moment in which the big telcos will be just carriers (like the current ISP-es), it'll be really an open playground.
The good thing about Android is that it's open and anyone can add features, customizations, etc. to it.
The bad thing about Android is that the manufacturers and the carriers usually end up raping it and making it a worse experience.
The ugly part is that Google doesn't seem to care all that much and is perfectly willing to put up with this kind of crap.
Good heavens, I'm glad Google doesn't care. Because if it would start to care, the risk of becoming very bad from ugly only it high: I think there's enough of a single "God" in this sky (the one that paints everything iWhite), a bit of diversity is good. Shop careful for your smart-phone and picking the devices that allows you the good will sort the bad and ugly by the "vote with your wallet" - just like my father used to say.
The problem isn't us, it's the neighbor down the street that thinks of their phone as a simple tool, who doesn't have the skills to get around what the carrier or manufacturer wants, and is wondering why they don't get updates like iOS and computers in general get.
I fail to see why the neighbor-down-the-street's problems become my (or, for the matter, your) problem? How the fact the he doesn't get updates affects you or me?
Because if it doesn't, letting aside being a nice person that emphatise so easily with the electric-sheep-down-the-street, why would I care?
So where's the phone for adults who have their own cars and pay for their own pizzas? And have keys to their own houses?
If you are such an adult, chances are that you can arrange one for youself. Take a non-network locked smart-phone (which does allow you to root it), pick your carrier and use it for data only, get a Skype number.
Sure you can afford all the above, you are an adult, aren't you?
The Nokia fanboys at least consistent with their beliefs of freedom.
Ah, BTW, on the "spew nonsense" line - the "fanboy" is yet another red-flag.
I already admitted that I didn't buy any smart-phone, but I decided that I'll wait-and-see, and I'm too old to base my buying decision on "coolness/fanboysm" or anything like that. The way I see, your veiled accusation above is gratuitous and actually a flamebite.
Does it make sense, or do I need to elaborate more, honey-bunny?
Why are you supporting Google in this matter?
To answer your question straight: because the alternative (Google starting to impose contraints) is far more dangerous than having me coping with the "pain of choice" in a concurential market and the law of "vote with my wallet".
Google's licensing deals are toxic for the future of the Android platform.
Debatable... but even if you are right, I argue that Google is in its right to do it and it is actually good that it does so.
Preliminaries: Android is truly an Open Source OS with no string attached and Google's only "property" stay in the Android OS.
It is/was your choice to enter in a contract with a 3rd party entity that limits what you can do with Android. I think that you will agree with how I presented the current situation, so I'll share with you my opinions on why I think Google choice does make sense and it's actually good for me:
1. it makes legal and business sense because Google doesn't want to become an OEM and telco provider. From which it derives: Google doesn't want to take the pains of entering in a legally binding contract with the end-consumers. This way, Google can take care to maximize the profit for their shareholders and take care of my interest in relation with Android by having the updates available whenever there are security problems.
2. In my mind, it does also make moral/ethical/yro sense as well. Do you want really want Google to arbitrate and determine your interest and determine what is good or bad for you beyond the Android OS? Isn't Steve Jobs enough of a "God" already? Speaking for me, I'm quite careful what I wish for and I'm quite affraid of a point in which Google will start "arbitrating" instead of letting the customers look for their own interest and act as mature persons in relation with the entities that wronged them (and, the way I see, it is the OEM/telcos that wronged you, not Google).
Defending Google is far from my mind, I'm actually quite affraid of it (and, in my opinion, you should too). I'm pretty pleased to see that Google has the common-sense to stay out of the problem and see after the interest of its shareholders instead of my interest: I'm pretty capable of taking care myself, thank you.
Letting aside the use of "you/your" in the above (instead of a more impersonal "one/one's"), does it make sense now?
Sorry, but no. While in theory it's a valid point, it would still be Google's decision as to whether a handset should receive an upgrade. Nothing in Google's contracts with the carriers or the manufacturers would prevent Google from holding back an upgrade.
While you may be right when assessing the situation from the moral/ethical point of view, trying to blame Google from a legal/contractual point of view has no basis, really. Google has no legally binding contract with you (to protect you or your interest), so it is free to do as it chooses (and support the consequences the free market brings on them as the result of their choices).
If you think that, legally, what Samsung or AT&T do to you is a breach of contract, it is NOT Google to arbitrate or impose something on OEM or telco: methinks there still are "Consumer protection" agencies and courts of justice dealing with these matters in your country, are they not?
Put up a class-suit and OEM/telcos will be very careful next time (even if you setlle or loose). In a competitive free market, bad publicity is still bad publicity.
Why do you feel the need of Google to "act as God"? Isn't one Steve Jobs enough on the market already? Why would we need a pathoen of Gods?
So why are you paying that price and not the OEM or the network vendor?
My right to pay whatever price I choose, as it is yours.
The prices you pay kind of suck [in my opinion] . You paid them for the phone. Google fucked up because they should've strong armed OEMs into providing proper and timely updates.
FTFY. And you do have the right to your opinion and the choices you make based on it, as long as your opinion/choices don't hurt me (and any constrained imposed on the free market are going to hurt me... this is why I don't like Apple).
Are we cool honey-bunny? 'Cause when I count three, you let go of your gun, and sit your ass down [...] Ready? One... two... three.
Also, what's the difference between SenseUI in say, Donut or Eclair that isn't in say, FroYo or Gingerbread?
How the hell should I know? I reserved my freedom not to buy any of the smart-phones until the mud setlles. /. for TFA of this nature, they are interesting to me for the very reasons above.
I'm far beyond the age of "early adopters for coolness reasons". I'll give it another 6 months-1 year and reconsider. Until then, I'll keep reading
This is one of those rare posts that made me see the situation differently. Thank you for that.
Too kind, thanks for the compliment.
The only thing I would add is that vendors like Samsung should still have an obligation to at least backport security fixes. If noncommercial Linux distributions like Debian can summon up the skill and time to do that, so can the wireless carriers. They can then balance the expense of backporting security fixes versus the expense of determining whether an upgrade really breaks anything and whether that can be mitigated.
Just pointing out some differences between Android and Debian distribution: pay attention to the eco-system and the interests. Here's an example (in which I let the content providers/DRM issue aside).
1. Android: device manufacturers (interested in deprecating the HW models faster), telecom/carriers (interested in minimizing the cost of transmission/necessary infrastructure for "over the air" upgrades), consumers (interested in paying less, have the lastest OS, stay secure)
2. Debian distribution: no HW providers, carriers (now) almost indifferent to traffic quota related with updates, consumers with the same interest.
The landscape is much too different for Google act as like the Debian stewards do and try to enforce the rules. I guess Google choice of "anti-objects programming"*** is still legitimate: even Google cannot afford to fight everybody and still pose as a pioneer for openness.
After all... here's the interesting question... "Is it possible to impose constraints to allow freedom to prosper"? The exercise of democracy shows it is somehow possible, but the contraints vs freedom balancing act is awfuly full of perils (as the post-9/11 era and the more accute Wikileaks crisis clearly demonstrate - the obligatory quote with "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" does fit in this context).
*** The "Anti-object programming" metaphor: Google specifies a number of the "rules of the game" and, I guess, chooses the minimal number of rules that would still allow the Android ecosystem to grow ("evolutionary" approach). Apple is "object oriented", keeping strict in control what their "objects" behave and how they evolve ("intelligent creation" approach).
PS. My apologies for bringing so many hot /. topics under the same post (only the "Global warming" is missing?), it is a result of a too long period of C++ template meta-programming (I'm dreaming patterns already, kid you not), coffee and long periods of waiting the solutions to compile (in which I have plenty of spare time to read /.).
;) for those too tempted, save your sarcasm: I have a home on my own... and no, it doesn't have a basement ;).
Finally, here a cliche as an apotheosis for all the above: time for me to get a life.
There's no reason that Google couldn't include rules like "No DRM" or "Upgrades must be allowed." That would certainly make it more open.
But they didn't do that.
Because it is technically impossible - in the general case - to impose the "Upgrades must be allowed" - it would be akin to ask "Run Linux kernel 2.6 and latest XWindows on a x486 with 16 MB RAM" only because Linux (can't recall the version) used to run quite nicely on such a machine back in 1993-ish.
However, given the many competing device manufacturers, I believe the balance between the rights of vendors and the rights of consumers will stabilize on a more normal situation in time.
For the time being, I think Android is a young platform (younger than iPhone and Blackberry anyway), we are seeing "transient" regimes ("growth pains" rather than "artritis pains").
Hows all that "open platform" "not locked to a walled garden" "no need to jailbreak" Android working out for all the people that rant and rave against the iPhone?
Bitter-sweet like the real-world freedom:
a. "fragmentation" still allow for choices. As always, freedom is not gratis, always come with a price (as anything in this world).
b. one of the sweet consequences: having many competing device manufacturers and the free-flow of information, I can still pick a phone from a manufacturer with less restrictive OS upgrade policies. Can the iPhone owners do the same?
And to answer to your (potential) question: "what about those that cannot afford to pay the price for their freedom"? Well, I'll argue that they are in the very same situation as an iPhone owner (no better but again not worse). Is this enough of an argument why relying on Android (in general) is better then on iPhone?
That people are (a) running devices that are open to attack, and (b) are able to connect such devices to any Pentagon network, is seriously pathetic.
With the current security landscape, this boils down, essentially, to: (a) People are using computing devices (b) Some computers are able to connect to the Pentagon network
Best solution... Pentagon to drop the reliance on computers. Errr... wait... and paper too (because the Pentagon papers were... well... on paper).
Agreed.
I'm sure Apple would not object to "Crapp Store" :)
Try to publish an article with these words sticked (making clear reference) to Apple's AppStore, see if they don't object.
h.264 is already the standard format for video on the web. It's what Flash uses.
Wait until YouTube distribute the clips in V8/WebM only (the owner of the site can do it).
Furthermore if a certain other company tried this stunt (cough;Microsoft) with their favorite codec (drop all support except WMV) everybody would be up in arms, saying they are trying to gain a monopolistic advantage over competition.
First, to gain a monopolistic advantage, you actually need a monopoly, and Chrome - unlike Windows or IE - is far from it.
Oh yeah? Even not a monopoly, YouTube seems to be significant enough.
Wanna bet Google is going to drift away from h264 encoding in the near future?
... we will need to have every browser installed, because every other website on the intertubes will be using different technologies that are only supported by one browser.
Step 1. Name the biggest collection of the video clips on the intertubes
Step 2. Imagine a "nuke attack" in which the owner of that collection don't distribute them anymore in H.264 encoding
What I can however guarantee you: if you don't spend any on science, you finish burning the Quran as a civic duty or having laws that punish blasphemy by death. Is it better?
There's nothing about science in itself that leads to a more liberal society, Iran could produce nuclear weapons, it wouldn't stop them stoning someone to death.
The presence of science in a society, no.
However, I argued that the absence of science in a modern society leads to a fundamentalistic religious social structure.
To pinpoint the failure in your argumentation: if "A=>B", it doesn't necessary follow that "non-A=>non-B", but it does follow that "non-B=>non-A".
In this case, "If Iran's society would stop being fundamentalist, then the science must be present in their society" (granted, a bit of stretched... But if you replace "science" with "rational/critical thinking" the statement would be true).
The anti-hydrogen atoms were only stable in the particle-physicist sense - IIRC they lasted about 5 seconds. If someone's built an antimatter container that can keep it around for, say, long enough to fly it across the atlantic,...
Why? Would be US interested in importing anti-hydrogen? What for? Create an Anti H-bomb?
... that really is a new achievement.
So a partial achivement in 1995 is not good enough?