Apple created the SDK and maintains it. The amount of money they spent on the development of the SDK is negligible compared to the actual development of iOS and how much they profit. There is absolutely no reason except greed and lock-in to prevent someone from freely being able to tinker with apps on their own device. In fact, removing the $99/yr barrier to putting apps on your own device would result in many more developers just "testing the waters" with iPhone development and thus lead to many more developers actually paying that $99/yr in order to release apps. Think about it this way, you have to invest that $99/yr just to start developing the app. Instead, what if you could develop for free and they charged you the $99/yr for only what they say they are charging it for, hosting it on the App Store. If you only needed the license to actually distribute the app, a lot more people would be developing for the iPhone.
Notice what Rackspace has state. They believe that it is hate speech and that it is against their terms of service. It is quite obviously "stuff we don't agree with" or "stuff we think is innappropriate". Unless they start taking down every Christian page on their service, etc., then I don't see how you can think that this is discrimination on religious grounds. Whether their speech and beliefs are due to their religion is irrelevant, it is what they said that Rackspace disagrees with and violates the terms of service.
And if Rackspace was an ISP you would have a point. Rackspace is a web hosting service. They aren't carriers they are allowing someone, who follows their rules, to store content on their servers. A very different situation than being an ISP.
There's been a Mosque CLOSER to ground zero for about 40 years now. The building that is to be built is a COMMUNITY CENTER. I'm really getting sick and tired of all this "Mosque at Ground Zero" crap.
It is not called discrimination if you extend your services to someone on the condition that they not do specific things with your services, and then withhold your service when they break that agreement. For example, say there is a bulletin board in a school. Do they have the right to allow or disallow posting of things? Is it discrimination if a lurid and suggestive (but not pornographic) flyer is disallowed from being placed on the bulletin board in the school because they do not want to associate themselves with it? There's no direct harm. The flyer is "merely a representation of a belief". If you say that the school has the right to determine what is appropriate to be on the bulletin board because it is on school property, or any variation thereof, then you are being inconsistent. Essentially Rackspace is providing a bulletin board with only certain content deemed appropriate.
Personally, I don't believe that human life is any more special than the life of an animal, pet, or any other sentient creature. I would just as soon save a pet cat as I would a person.
Any act that someone is forced to do can be emotionally/psychologically damaging. Any act that anyone does can be emotionally and psychologically difficult for some people and not for others. Not counting those who are forced into prostitution/slavery, I highly doubt that someone who decides to become a prostitute voluntarily (not being forced by any means) is someone who finds sex to be very emotionally intimate. Those who desire to be prostitutes for the money, just because they like sex, etc, are generally those people who see sex as just sex. Not as something more intimate and emotional.
It's true that it's much more common to see sex as something that affects a person emotionally and pyschologically, but part of that is due to societal norms. There are people who find that the subservience they feel by being a fast food worker is psychologically damaging. Who find the entire environment to be emotionally degrading, etc. It's different for each person.
but there will always be customers who are all the more attracted to non-consensual sexual encounters because they are forbidden
One does not have to actually have to force someone or cause trauma to have that "non-consensual sexual encounter" that they fantasize about. Many prostitutes are willing to roleplay the fantasies of people who want to have those types of sex. It'll cost them extra, but what's wrong with finding the prostitutes that are willing to fulfill that person's fantasy for money? I agree that it has been a last ditch profession for many women, but it is entirely possible for those who are willing to fulfill those dirty, dangerous, and brutal fantasies to do so without leading to the so-called darker side. Look at the S&M scene, while it doesn't have the actual intercourse (generally) you see all kinds of fantasies, role playing, etc. go on without the psychological and emotional trauma.
The "dark side" of prostitution is completely able to be eradicated. Pursue those who sell women into slavery, mistreat them, force them into prostitution. But consensual prostitution (even if it is just a job the woman is willing to do because she is poor) should be completely legal. Legalizing it would definitely reduce the amount of human trafficking and other horribleness that goes on. It won't do away with it completely, obviously, but it would definitely reduce it.
There is nothing really stopping someone from bringing Flash to the iPhone, SDK agreements included
Ya know, except for that part of the SDK that says you can't use any interpreted languages or abstraction layers. The same part that prevents someone from creating a java environment or scripting environment for the iPhone. Now....if someone wanted to create flash for iOS for jailbroken iPhones......
You're comparing an operating system to a browser plugin? That's ridiculous. Until a viable replacement can replace a technology in all instances, then yes being prevalent is an extremely good reason to keep it around. Just look at all the businesses using COBOL, FORTRAN, and other very old systems/hardware/tech. The reason they keep it around is because it's prevalent and would be more expensive to update than to just keep. Only when there is something that can completely replace a technology in all instances can you replace a prevalent technology.
One of the reasons a lot of sites, like Hulu, use flash for their video is the ability to protect the video stream. (Mind you I am against this practice, but it is a reason for them to keep it). Flash allows companies to encrypt and secure the video stream so that the video can be watched without them worrying about it being hijacked and downloaded. (Yes, I know there are probably ways around this but they are not exactly easy.). HTML5, as it stands, does not provide this protection and thus is not a viable alternative. Also, in general, current HTML5 video players are no better, and sometimes worse, than flash video players. So why switch to something that gives no real benefit? You may gain some users by switching to HTML5 but will you gain more than you lose in those who don't use a browser that can play your video?
As for your comparison of Operating Systems and plugins (yes i know it was just hyperbole and sarcasm, I'm just illustrating that your argument is ridiculous =P). Games are a completely viable reason to depend on a plugin. People buy consoles just to play games, they(yes install huge amounts of RAM and buy expensive video cards just to play games. What is wrong with downloading a free plugin that you can easily turn on/off to play a game? I'd wager it's a helluva lot more cost effective than buying a Windows license/video card/ram/console, for how many games you can play as a result. Also think about people who don't have access to as many games (whether it's their OS, hardware, etc.) they can just install this free plugin and gain access to a ton of games. The comparison of "you might as well argue that every device should run Windows" makes no sense because it's extremely easy and non-intrusive to install a plugin or remove a plugin. It's a huge hassle to install a different Operating System. A plugin allows choice, you can turn it off, uninstall it do whatever for no cost and less than a few minutes of your time. Saying that every device should run Windows removes choice, costs a lot due to the license, and installing windows takes WAY longer than it should =P.
Basically, HTML5 is not a viable replacement for flash yet. And It definitely shouldn't be FORCED on people.
With stock android, you must specifically enable flash. It's a separate application that you must install. A few manufacturers are including flash installed by default, but in general it's not enabled be default. For those who get a phone where the manufacturer installed flash for them already, if you use Android at all you know how to uninstall an application. Therefore it is very simple to disable flash. (If you want it again you can just reinstall it. It's very simple.) Basically it's no different from having flash on your PC. You can install/uninstall it as you like.
And there's plenty of video you are going to miss relying on Mobile Flash, including Hulu..."
Pardon me, but Hulu doesn't work on HTML5 yet. So what are you talking about? Hulu did work on mobile flash (and worked pretty damn well too) until the networks that give their video to Hulu put a stop to it. But for the time that it did work, it was a testament to the fact that mobile flash could work perfectly.
For a while there was a large demand for floppy disks too after Apple got rid of them. Current demand is hardly indicative of future success.
While you are correct that current demand is not the sole indicator of future success it is a big one. Also, since HTML5 will not be ready to take over every use of flash for at least a few years, flash is still very much in use and needed. As said earlier in the comments on this article. The discussion should have nothing to do with how good/bad mobile flash is, the fact is that the CHOICE needs to be there. Apple has robbed users of this choice.
Right, but I see no problem with Comcast prioritizing Comcast VOIP as long as they do not slow down other VOIP traffic. Then I can pay for premium voip if I want, or use other voip providers but possibly with not quite the same guarantee of quality.
That right there, good sir, is called anti-competitive behavior. Using their position as the ISP to leverage an advantage in the VOIP industry.
Speeding up all of their own services to run faster than anything else on their networks is THE EXACT SAME THING as slowing everything but their own services down. There is no conceptual difference.
So we're talking about a regulation to solve a problem we have not yet seen and there is no sign of...
Um, AT&T just said that they WANT to prioritize traffic based on paying for premiums. They said they are CURRENTLY doing it. So how can you say it's a "problem we have not yet seen and there is no sign of" when AT&T just made this admission?
if you choose to regulate the internet, which until now has been free and open...
You seem to not realize that the point of this "regulation" is to ENFORCE the free and open status quo that the internet currently has. Aside from the few instances like AT&T saying they already do paid prioritization and Comcast screwing over BitTorrent traffic, the internet is currently pretty neutral and works just fine. I honestly don't see how anyone can look at phone service in this country and not realize how much it benefited the consumers by codifying non-discrimination rules using the Title II classification rules. Internet would be the same way.
Personally I would like to see internet service turned into a public utility and all these companies having to divorce the provision of access to the internet from the provision of services over the internet. Those who provide access should not have the conflict of interests by providing services too. Each company believes their service is the best and thus will claim that by prioritizing their service above competitors they are benefiting consumers. When in reality it's just an anti-competitive practice.
if you don't play by the rules we all have to follow, what does that say about you? Are you too good for rules?
If everyone just always played by the 'rules', then no one would ever see a cause for change. "Why fix it if it ain't broke?"
Granted in this day and age, he could probably put up a website and ask for donations and get thousands of people to donate a few bucks to pay that bill.
Why would I want to do an assignment in an if statement or a loop condition check anyway?
if ( ( foo = bar() ) >= x )// do something with foo
It's very frequent to do an assignment inside of a condition if you are calling an expensive function to test against if you want to use the result. That way you don't have to call the function again. Granted you could simply do the assignment before the if statment, like so
foo = bar();
if (foo >= x)// do something with foo
But some of us like saving the extra line:) Also, if you have a particularly large condition, && and || shortcutting can save time.
It doesn't "need" to be rooted. You "can" root it. The deal is the fact that you can root to enable extra functionality that most people wouldn't care about. Such as replacing the kernel, overclocking, using a terminal to directly access the OS internals. Most reasons to jailbreak an iPhone can be done on an Android phone without ever having to root it.
Replacing the bootloader similarly isn't easy to begin with and not getting any easier either : "DroidX bootloader locked tight [droiddog.com]." And it will only get worse now Google itself is out of the handset game.
As GP said, it depends on the phone. Some phones, like the original Droid, are very easy to root. Download the official motorola program to flash it, download the.sbf file, run said program with said file. Then install superuser. As for the Droid X, how bout A One-Click Root?
The most popular Android phones come with undeletable crapware
This is unfortunate and sucks horribly. Only root would allow you to delete the crapware, which is making me clambor to hope that a better, non-screwed, android phone will emerge before it is time for me to upgrade.
As far as half-truths, the same could be said of the iPhone, and nearly every electronic device. Many people will speak highly using half-truths to make something sounds great, others will do the opposite, lying through their teeth to make something sound horrible. Research and figure out for yourself, go with what works for you. So far it seems the problem is not Android, the problem is the manufacturers using it (Moto locking the bootloader, Moto and HTC loading crapware onto the phones, the carriers preventing the crapware from being deletable, etc.)
Unless of course the famine was caused by a shortage of resources. Then the free market example you have given will just make the famine worse. Those who produce the food will produce more food, thus running through resources quicker, thus making the famine worse. Also, as a result of the famine, prices will go through the roof (supply and demand) since there will be a high demand of food and a dwindling supply. Thus a balance would eventually get struck as those who could afford the food continue to eat and those who cannot afford the food will die. The length of the famine is irrelevant. A government regulation to ensure people food would be necessary. Otherwise you're just saying "oh, if you can't afford this necessary food for your own survival. Too bad, the free market has decided that you don't get to eat."
Just because the free market approach works in many cases, does not mean it works in all cases. We don't live in a vacuum, whereas the free market is only guaranteed to work if there is no external influence. A closed system.
Last I heard, favoring "Individual Liberty and Choice" is to the left. Big business controlling everything and government enforced morality is to the right. That means that the current Democratic party is indeed very centrist.
Most other countries "conservatives" and "right wing parties" are to the left of our Democratic party.
we've been able to do video streaming for years, but we don't, and bandwidth has never been the problem.
Actually quite a lot of people do video streaming. I've been wanting to do it for a while myself and bandwidth is INDEED the problem. My home bandwidth just isn't enough to support a smooth video stream being uploaded.
Also, I must ask, what IS your problem with P2P? You keep using it as a non-issue. But many things are distributed a helluva lot faster using it. Game patches, Linux distributions, people are even working on P2P streaming to reduce bandwidth usage for video streaming from the source.
And if proprietary companies would create drivers for linux then it would. Many companies only create windows drivers and thus the Linux community has to reverse engineer and come up with their own drivers for a lot of hardware.
...common media (including games)...
Same thing. Chicken and egg. Companies don't make these for linux because it's not as popular because there aren't games because......etc. This is why I'm ECSTATIC about Valve porting Steam to linux.
...and be accessible to common people.
Linux IS accessible to common people. The problem is that many people are AFRAID of it because it's different. It's not more difficult, it's not any less usable, it's just different than what they are used to. If people were more accepting of change, then more people would find Linux just as usable as they find windows, if not more so. The problem is not that Linux needs to be more windows-like. The problem is people need to stop expecting Linux to be Windows.
Linux is no more a "magic bullet" than anything else
Actually, while I point out that this is purely anecdotal, in my experience using Linux results in many situations where PEBKAC isn't as much of a problem anymore due to the fact that the user can't simply click "Continue" and act as root. So while you'd probably be stuck doing some maintenance for them (probably less than you do now) the problems they can cause, due to the OS simply not allowing them, are much smaller and less frequent. Will they still manage to make you go "WTF?" of course, but at least from what I've dealt with, it's a helluva lot easier to deal with than the problems users create with Windows.
NO FLOSS equivalents which would cost billions to pay to have someone replicate the functionality of
This is a bit of a chicken and an egg problem. The large companies that need the specialized software use windows, thus when they commission these programs, they commission windows versions of them. The companies that create the software have no need for a Linux version due to only being commissioned for the windows version. When a new company shows up, they use windows because the software already exists for windows and thus is less expensive than commissioning a linux version. Thus the cycle perpetuates. It's really annoying and would really only take a few companies to break the cycle and commission linux versions of things which would start a chain reaction to more of this specialized software existing for Linux. Break this chicken and egg problem, and companies would use linux for more than just data centers and servers.
Honestly, deep down, do you really think that two years from now the iPhone will no longer be dominant, just because Apple wasn't gracious enough about these antenna problems?
No, but I do believe it will be one factor of an increasing amount of mistakes Apple is making that will eventually land them below Android in the smartphone space.
The GPL is only needed due to copyright law. Without copyright law, there would be no need for the GPL as anyone could use the code without issue. =) Necessary evil and all that jazz.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple created the SDK and maintains it. The amount of money they spent on the development of the SDK is negligible compared to the actual development of iOS and how much they profit. There is absolutely no reason except greed and lock-in to prevent someone from freely being able to tinker with apps on their own device. In fact, removing the $99/yr barrier to putting apps on your own device would result in many more developers just "testing the waters" with iPhone development and thus lead to many more developers actually paying that $99/yr in order to release apps. Think about it this way, you have to invest that $99/yr just to start developing the app. Instead, what if you could develop for free and they charged you the $99/yr for only what they say they are charging it for, hosting it on the App Store. If you only needed the license to actually distribute the app, a lot more people would be developing for the iPhone.
Notice what Rackspace has state. They believe that it is hate speech and that it is against their terms of service. It is quite obviously "stuff we don't agree with" or "stuff we think is innappropriate". Unless they start taking down every Christian page on their service, etc., then I don't see how you can think that this is discrimination on religious grounds. Whether their speech and beliefs are due to their religion is irrelevant, it is what they said that Rackspace disagrees with and violates the terms of service.
And if Rackspace was an ISP you would have a point. Rackspace is a web hosting service. They aren't carriers they are allowing someone, who follows their rules, to store content on their servers. A very different situation than being an ISP.
There's been a Mosque CLOSER to ground zero for about 40 years now. The building that is to be built is a COMMUNITY CENTER. I'm really getting sick and tired of all this "Mosque at Ground Zero" crap.
It is not called discrimination if you extend your services to someone on the condition that they not do specific things with your services, and then withhold your service when they break that agreement. For example, say there is a bulletin board in a school. Do they have the right to allow or disallow posting of things? Is it discrimination if a lurid and suggestive (but not pornographic) flyer is disallowed from being placed on the bulletin board in the school because they do not want to associate themselves with it? There's no direct harm. The flyer is "merely a representation of a belief". If you say that the school has the right to determine what is appropriate to be on the bulletin board because it is on school property, or any variation thereof, then you are being inconsistent. Essentially Rackspace is providing a bulletin board with only certain content deemed appropriate.
Personally, I don't believe that human life is any more special than the life of an animal, pet, or any other sentient creature. I would just as soon save a pet cat as I would a person.
Any act that someone is forced to do can be emotionally/psychologically damaging. Any act that anyone does can be emotionally and psychologically difficult for some people and not for others. Not counting those who are forced into prostitution/slavery, I highly doubt that someone who decides to become a prostitute voluntarily (not being forced by any means) is someone who finds sex to be very emotionally intimate. Those who desire to be prostitutes for the money, just because they like sex, etc, are generally those people who see sex as just sex. Not as something more intimate and emotional.
It's true that it's much more common to see sex as something that affects a person emotionally and pyschologically, but part of that is due to societal norms. There are people who find that the subservience they feel by being a fast food worker is psychologically damaging. Who find the entire environment to be emotionally degrading, etc. It's different for each person.
but there will always be customers who are all the more attracted to non-consensual sexual encounters because they are forbidden
One does not have to actually have to force someone or cause trauma to have that "non-consensual sexual encounter" that they fantasize about. Many prostitutes are willing to roleplay the fantasies of people who want to have those types of sex. It'll cost them extra, but what's wrong with finding the prostitutes that are willing to fulfill that person's fantasy for money? I agree that it has been a last ditch profession for many women, but it is entirely possible for those who are willing to fulfill those dirty, dangerous, and brutal fantasies to do so without leading to the so-called darker side. Look at the S&M scene, while it doesn't have the actual intercourse (generally) you see all kinds of fantasies, role playing, etc. go on without the psychological and emotional trauma.
The "dark side" of prostitution is completely able to be eradicated. Pursue those who sell women into slavery, mistreat them, force them into prostitution. But consensual prostitution (even if it is just a job the woman is willing to do because she is poor) should be completely legal. Legalizing it would definitely reduce the amount of human trafficking and other horribleness that goes on. It won't do away with it completely, obviously, but it would definitely reduce it.
Or someone else's eyes....=)
There is nothing really stopping someone from bringing Flash to the iPhone, SDK agreements included
Ya know, except for that part of the SDK that says you can't use any interpreted languages or abstraction layers. The same part that prevents someone from creating a java environment or scripting environment for the iPhone. Now....if someone wanted to create flash for iOS for jailbroken iPhones......
You're comparing an operating system to a browser plugin? That's ridiculous. Until a viable replacement can replace a technology in all instances, then yes being prevalent is an extremely good reason to keep it around. Just look at all the businesses using COBOL, FORTRAN, and other very old systems/hardware/tech. The reason they keep it around is because it's prevalent and would be more expensive to update than to just keep. Only when there is something that can completely replace a technology in all instances can you replace a prevalent technology.
One of the reasons a lot of sites, like Hulu, use flash for their video is the ability to protect the video stream. (Mind you I am against this practice, but it is a reason for them to keep it). Flash allows companies to encrypt and secure the video stream so that the video can be watched without them worrying about it being hijacked and downloaded. (Yes, I know there are probably ways around this but they are not exactly easy.). HTML5, as it stands, does not provide this protection and thus is not a viable alternative. Also, in general, current HTML5 video players are no better, and sometimes worse, than flash video players. So why switch to something that gives no real benefit? You may gain some users by switching to HTML5 but will you gain more than you lose in those who don't use a browser that can play your video?
As for your comparison of Operating Systems and plugins (yes i know it was just hyperbole and sarcasm, I'm just illustrating that your argument is ridiculous =P). Games are a completely viable reason to depend on a plugin. People buy consoles just to play games, they(yes install huge amounts of RAM and buy expensive video cards just to play games. What is wrong with downloading a free plugin that you can easily turn on/off to play a game? I'd wager it's a helluva lot more cost effective than buying a Windows license/video card/ram/console, for how many games you can play as a result. Also think about people who don't have access to as many games (whether it's their OS, hardware, etc.) they can just install this free plugin and gain access to a ton of games. The comparison of "you might as well argue that every device should run Windows" makes no sense because it's extremely easy and non-intrusive to install a plugin or remove a plugin. It's a huge hassle to install a different Operating System. A plugin allows choice, you can turn it off, uninstall it do whatever for no cost and less than a few minutes of your time. Saying that every device should run Windows removes choice, costs a lot due to the license, and installing windows takes WAY longer than it should =P.
Basically, HTML5 is not a viable replacement for flash yet. And It definitely shouldn't be FORCED on people.
With stock android, you must specifically enable flash. It's a separate application that you must install. A few manufacturers are including flash installed by default, but in general it's not enabled be default. For those who get a phone where the manufacturer installed flash for them already, if you use Android at all you know how to uninstall an application. Therefore it is very simple to disable flash. (If you want it again you can just reinstall it. It's very simple.) Basically it's no different from having flash on your PC. You can install/uninstall it as you like.
And there's plenty of video you are going to miss relying on Mobile Flash, including Hulu..."
Pardon me, but Hulu doesn't work on HTML5 yet. So what are you talking about? Hulu did work on mobile flash (and worked pretty damn well too) until the networks that give their video to Hulu put a stop to it. But for the time that it did work, it was a testament to the fact that mobile flash could work perfectly.
For a while there was a large demand for floppy disks too after Apple got rid of them. Current demand is hardly indicative of future success.
While you are correct that current demand is not the sole indicator of future success it is a big one. Also, since HTML5 will not be ready to take over every use of flash for at least a few years, flash is still very much in use and needed. As said earlier in the comments on this article. The discussion should have nothing to do with how good/bad mobile flash is, the fact is that the CHOICE needs to be there. Apple has robbed users of this choice.
Right, but I see no problem with Comcast prioritizing Comcast VOIP as long as they do not slow down other VOIP traffic. Then I can pay for premium voip if I want, or use other voip providers but possibly with not quite the same guarantee of quality.
That right there, good sir, is called anti-competitive behavior. Using their position as the ISP to leverage an advantage in the VOIP industry.
Speeding up all of their own services to run faster than anything else on their networks is THE EXACT SAME THING as slowing everything but their own services down. There is no conceptual difference.
So we're talking about a regulation to solve a problem we have not yet seen and there is no sign of...
Um, AT&T just said that they WANT to prioritize traffic based on paying for premiums. They said they are CURRENTLY doing it. So how can you say it's a "problem we have not yet seen and there is no sign of" when AT&T just made this admission?
if you choose to regulate the internet, which until now has been free and open...
You seem to not realize that the point of this "regulation" is to ENFORCE the free and open status quo that the internet currently has. Aside from the few instances like AT&T saying they already do paid prioritization and Comcast screwing over BitTorrent traffic, the internet is currently pretty neutral and works just fine. I honestly don't see how anyone can look at phone service in this country and not realize how much it benefited the consumers by codifying non-discrimination rules using the Title II classification rules. Internet would be the same way.
Personally I would like to see internet service turned into a public utility and all these companies having to divorce the provision of access to the internet from the provision of services over the internet. Those who provide access should not have the conflict of interests by providing services too. Each company believes their service is the best and thus will claim that by prioritizing their service above competitors they are benefiting consumers. When in reality it's just an anti-competitive practice.
if you don't play by the rules we all have to follow, what does that say about you? Are you too good for rules?
If everyone just always played by the 'rules', then no one would ever see a cause for change. "Why fix it if it ain't broke?"
Granted in this day and age, he could probably put up a website and ask for donations and get thousands of people to donate a few bucks to pay that bill.
Why would I want to do an assignment in an if statement or a loop condition check anyway?
if ( ( foo = bar() ) >= x ) // do something with foo
It's very frequent to do an assignment inside of a condition if you are calling an expensive function to test against if you want to use the result. That way you don't have to call the function again. Granted you could simply do the assignment before the if statment, like so
foo = bar(); if (foo >= x) // do something with foo
But some of us like saving the extra line :) Also, if you have a particularly large condition, && and || shortcutting can save time.
Even Google's own Nexus One needs to be rooted
It doesn't "need" to be rooted. You "can" root it. The deal is the fact that you can root to enable extra functionality that most people wouldn't care about. Such as replacing the kernel, overclocking, using a terminal to directly access the OS internals. Most reasons to jailbreak an iPhone can be done on an Android phone without ever having to root it.
Replacing the bootloader similarly isn't easy to begin with and not getting any easier either : "DroidX bootloader locked tight [droiddog.com]." And it will only get worse now Google itself is out of the handset game.
As GP said, it depends on the phone. Some phones, like the original Droid, are very easy to root. Download the official motorola program to flash it, download the .sbf file, run said program with said file. Then install superuser. As for the Droid X, how bout A One-Click Root?
The most popular Android phones come with undeletable crapware
This is unfortunate and sucks horribly. Only root would allow you to delete the crapware, which is making me clambor to hope that a better, non-screwed, android phone will emerge before it is time for me to upgrade.
As far as half-truths, the same could be said of the iPhone, and nearly every electronic device. Many people will speak highly using half-truths to make something sounds great, others will do the opposite, lying through their teeth to make something sound horrible. Research and figure out for yourself, go with what works for you. So far it seems the problem is not Android, the problem is the manufacturers using it (Moto locking the bootloader, Moto and HTC loading crapware onto the phones, the carriers preventing the crapware from being deletable, etc.)
Good job at proving the GP's point. =) I congratulate you sir.
Unless of course the famine was caused by a shortage of resources. Then the free market example you have given will just make the famine worse. Those who produce the food will produce more food, thus running through resources quicker, thus making the famine worse. Also, as a result of the famine, prices will go through the roof (supply and demand) since there will be a high demand of food and a dwindling supply. Thus a balance would eventually get struck as those who could afford the food continue to eat and those who cannot afford the food will die. The length of the famine is irrelevant. A government regulation to ensure people food would be necessary. Otherwise you're just saying "oh, if you can't afford this necessary food for your own survival. Too bad, the free market has decided that you don't get to eat."
Just because the free market approach works in many cases, does not mean it works in all cases. We don't live in a vacuum, whereas the free market is only guaranteed to work if there is no external influence. A closed system.
Last I heard, favoring "Individual Liberty and Choice" is to the left. Big business controlling everything and government enforced morality is to the right. That means that the current Democratic party is indeed very centrist.
Most other countries "conservatives" and "right wing parties" are to the left of our Democratic party.
we've been able to do video streaming for years, but we don't, and bandwidth has never been the problem.
Actually quite a lot of people do video streaming. I've been wanting to do it for a while myself and bandwidth is INDEED the problem. My home bandwidth just isn't enough to support a smooth video stream being uploaded. Also, I must ask, what IS your problem with P2P? You keep using it as a non-issue. But many things are distributed a helluva lot faster using it. Game patches, Linux distributions, people are even working on P2P streaming to reduce bandwidth usage for video streaming from the source.
OS must support common hardware...
And if proprietary companies would create drivers for linux then it would. Many companies only create windows drivers and thus the Linux community has to reverse engineer and come up with their own drivers for a lot of hardware.
...common media (including games)...
Same thing. Chicken and egg. Companies don't make these for linux because it's not as popular because there aren't games because......etc. This is why I'm ECSTATIC about Valve porting Steam to linux.
...and be accessible to common people.
Linux IS accessible to common people. The problem is that many people are AFRAID of it because it's different. It's not more difficult, it's not any less usable, it's just different than what they are used to. If people were more accepting of change, then more people would find Linux just as usable as they find windows, if not more so. The problem is not that Linux needs to be more windows-like. The problem is people need to stop expecting Linux to be Windows.
Linux is no more a "magic bullet" than anything else
Actually, while I point out that this is purely anecdotal, in my experience using Linux results in many situations where PEBKAC isn't as much of a problem anymore due to the fact that the user can't simply click "Continue" and act as root. So while you'd probably be stuck doing some maintenance for them (probably less than you do now) the problems they can cause, due to the OS simply not allowing them, are much smaller and less frequent. Will they still manage to make you go "WTF?" of course, but at least from what I've dealt with, it's a helluva lot easier to deal with than the problems users create with Windows.
NO FLOSS equivalents which would cost billions to pay to have someone replicate the functionality of
This is a bit of a chicken and an egg problem. The large companies that need the specialized software use windows, thus when they commission these programs, they commission windows versions of them. The companies that create the software have no need for a Linux version due to only being commissioned for the windows version. When a new company shows up, they use windows because the software already exists for windows and thus is less expensive than commissioning a linux version. Thus the cycle perpetuates. It's really annoying and would really only take a few companies to break the cycle and commission linux versions of things which would start a chain reaction to more of this specialized software existing for Linux. Break this chicken and egg problem, and companies would use linux for more than just data centers and servers.
Honestly, deep down, do you really think that two years from now the iPhone will no longer be dominant, just because Apple wasn't gracious enough about these antenna problems?
No, but I do believe it will be one factor of an increasing amount of mistakes Apple is making that will eventually land them below Android in the smartphone space.
The GPL is only needed due to copyright law. Without copyright law, there would be no need for the GPL as anyone could use the code without issue. =) Necessary evil and all that jazz.