Not only that, I object to the characterization of Facebook as a better place to work that Google.
Yeah, I think someone's been doing a few too many lunches with Facebook reps. I've never heard this one. To be perfectly honest, the one company I still hear "vital engineers" talk about working for (if they can't work at Google) is Microsoft./.ers may hate Microsoft on principle, but where else could you go and end up working on.... well, you name it. Look at all the stuff coming out of Microsoft Research, even if it's never productized. An engineer who goes to work for a start-up might get to work on one really interesting idea, for stock options. An engineer who goes to Microsoft and gets disillusioned with one idea can get transferred to another one and still keep seniority and a highly competitive compensation package. Facebook? It might have a big valuation, but it sounds like just another Web start-up to me -- a few opportunities for engineers, but a lot more for marketing types and other "visionaries."
Really? Suppose your corrupt government sells your water supply to private interests? (Yes, I know this was the plot of Quantum of Solace, but that script was based on actual events.)
As much as I distrust the motivations of some corporations I distrust governments even more . So I view Google's defiance of the Chinese government as a victory for freedom and individual liberty.
I'm sure that's a comforting point of view for you to hold. But how do you know Google didn't defy the Chinese government because the U.S. government offered it something to do so? As a global corporation with offices in some 40 countries -- some of which are to some degree authoritarian, and others of which take a considerably more socialized view of business than the U.S. currently does -- the idea that Google is busy battling governments in the name of "freedom and individual liberty" isn't very credible.
Please for the love of god, learn WTF you're talking about. There is no such thing as an "african-american" dialect. As I said, it's people too stupid to learn the language of their own country.
No, actually, much of the African-American dialect is invented intentionally -- much like the Jamaican patois -- as a way to provide solidarity among the black community. It's also incredibly hypocritical for a white guy to claim blacks are "too stupid" to learn the language of "their country," when blacks were first kidnapped from their real countries and enslaved, then denied equal access to education for decades, all by racist assholes like you.
which makes YOU the racist asshole for thinking that they're incapable of learning English as any other native born American would simply because they're black
Well make up your mind, David Duke -- are they "too stupid" to learn, or can they not learn because I'm a racist? Sounds like you're the only one saying they can't learn, to me.
What I'm saying is that it might be nice if America did something to help black students get better education, after having been denied equal opportunities in the United States for generations. Economic status and education are highly correlated. A parent who was shot at by the National Guard when they tried to go to college is probably not going to raise their children in high economic status, and therefore the cycle of poor education continues.
But no -- you, from your position of privilege, get to look at an entire class of people and declare them "too stupid." They just coincidentally happen to be black, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how stupid, lazy, and ignorant they all are. Presumably they also like to steal. Tell me -- what have your scientific studies revealed regarding the consumption of watermelon or fried chicken?
Ebonics is people too stupid to learn their native language, so they just mumble some shit and then when they're told to learn english if they want a job, they cry and claim it's a "language" and that it's "racist" to not support it.
No. "Ebonics" was a bunch of teachers wanting to get dialect classified as a language, so they could then teach English as a second language. The idea is this: Students whose native language is Spanish come to American schools with many of the same handicaps as people who have grown up only speaking African-American dialect. The difference is that the states and the federal government provide additional funds for English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, but they don't provide any additional funding to help the black students, even though they consistently perform poorly in English classes. By getting Ebonics classified as a language, the teachers hoped to win some of the same additional funding that teachers who teach English to Latino students get.
Unfortunately, nobody outside the Bay Area seems to understand this, and so Ebonics in the rest of America remains just a touchstone to allow racist assholes like you feel good about yourselves.
(There are good western comics I know, *I guess*, I've read great things about The Sandman)
What a lot of these comments are missing is that the Comics Code has not really had much bite since the 1970s. Someone mentioned the anti-drug-abuse story that had to be published without the Code seal because the Code forbade any mention of drugs; that was in the 70s, and the Code was promptly changed. Many other restrictions, such as not allowing comics to make mention of vampires or werewolves, were also removed. The Code of the 80s and later was a far cry from what it originally was in the 50s. And of course, The Sandman was never under the Code to begin with. All the major publishers had lines of non-Code comics as far back as the 80s, and there were a few dozen independent publishers, beginning around the same time, that never subscribed to the Code at all. So this "event" (the death of the Code) is kind of a snooze; nobody has really cared in years.
So yeah -- you just prefer manga.
Re:Such "codes" fail in a world of easy distributi
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 1
The only reason such "codes" could fly is that the makers of art had to rely on a distribution system that could force such arbitrary restrictions on them.
Actually there's a theory (which I'm not sure I totally buy) that the whole thing was contrived as a way to destroy E.C. Comics.
At the time, E.C. -- the publisher of Tales from the Crypt, the Vault of Horror, the Haunt of Fear, and Weird Science, among others -- was the best-selling comics publisher in the industry. It was a bona fide phenomenon. Many publishers tried to imitate E.C.'s success, but none were able to truly recreate its unique formula of quality art and stories.
So instead, the also-ran publishers colluded to knock E.C. out of the market. Many of the objections raised in the Congressional hearings on comic books were examples taken directly from E.C. Comics covers and stories. Much of the language of the Code seemed to directly target E.C. -- for example, comics were not allowed to use the words "terror," "horror," or "fear" in their titles. The Code pretty much made it impossible for E.C. to continue to publish its top-selling titles in their original form, because when the smaller publishers all voluntarily jumped on board with the Code, distributors soon stopped shipping comics that didn't carry the Code seal on their covers.
At the time, the E.C. horror titles were still so popular that it was getting ready to publish the Crypt of Terror, a fourth title featuring its Crypt-Keeper character. Only one issue of that title was ever produced; instead, the Code killed all four titles.
While the rest of the industry continued on with superheroes and newspaper strip reprints, E.C. tried to launch a new line of titles with subjects like medical dramas, war stories, pirates, and (believe it or not) true tales of psychoanalysis. None of them were successful. Before long, E.C. Comics had vanished from the racks, with the company's only remaining product being the (admittedly successful) Mad Magazine.
Like I said, I'm not totally sure I believe this interpretation -- it seems odd that so many publishers, who were themselves publishing horror titles, would rather shoot themselves in the foot than compete honestly -- but it is pretty odd when a company can go from being the industry leader to practically filing for bankruptcy, not because of government regulation (there never was any), but solely because its competitors chose to collude on a voluntary censorship scheme... don't ya think?
RIM has always enjoyed customer loyalty comparable only to Apple's. They don't call them "CrackBerrys" for nothing. But it's precisely because of this that they face a tough challenge: They need to evolve their product fast enough to keep up with the other smartphone platforms, but they can't change it so much that they alienate their hardcore base. RIM may have leaned too far toward conservatism, though, because their current figures show most of their new subscribers are coming from the lower-end handsets in their product range. That suggests the more savvy consumers with more money to spend are wandering off to iPhone and Android, which is bad, because "business types" represented RIM's hardcore demographic.
Will Google only use webm for YouTube, forcing me to use its plugin so I can watch silly videos?
Could be. Are you forced to watch silly videos?
If I use Google's plug-in, will they track all my internet activity?
No, but if you use YouTube or other Google services, with or without a plugin, they will.
While Google will provide support to other desktop browsers, will they use this as a wedge against iPhone/mobile safari?
How would they do that? iPhones can view YouTube videos now, and Apple isn't going to let that feature disappear. WebM is an open codec. If users need WebM support to view YouTube videos, Apple will provide WebM support.
After 15+ years of this "ice 9" business I'm still waiting for results that in any way meet Koch's Postulates.
But Laura Manuelidis is claiming that vCJD and others are caused by "a slow-acting virus"... and Koch's Postulates aren't strictly applicable to viruses either. The best that Manuelidis has managed to do is to isolate "virus-like DNA signatures" -- which does not even prove the presence of a virus, let alone that a virus is causative. So in the best case scenario, Manuelidis may have raised some questions, but has been no more successful at meeting your preconditions for accuracy than anybody else. You apparently just think she's "fighting the good fight" because -- much like Jenny McCarthy -- she questions the prevailing theory. That attitude is bad science.
How long do the exist in prion form left to themselves I wonder. Can they exist in some dried powder form forever? Or do they spontaneously disintegrate into constituent compounds?
Scientists have taken prion-infected tissue and reduced it to ashes in a crucible at 600 C, and there were still viable, infective prions in the ashes.
I am not a biologist, but based on my reading of TFA, the scientists successfully infected immunodeficient and immunocompetent mice. It's counterintuitive, but the fact that the disease incubated in the immunodeficient mice at the same rate as the immunocompetent mice is what makes the research significant.
The immune system actually seems to play some kind of a role in prion diseases, acting as a kind of Trojan horse mechanism to spread the infection. It's not totally clear how this works, but the research supports that it happens. So what these scientists did is they inoculated immunodeficient mice with prions and observed them coming down with the prion disease in pretty much the exact same way as the immunocompetent ones. This establishes that a functioning immune system is not actually necessary for infection via aerosol. This means that an immunodeficient mouse, even when kept in semi-isolation, can potentially come down with a prion disease from an aerosol source even when it doesn't come in direct contact with any infected tissues.
That's a pretty big deal when you consider a lot of scientists in research laboratories might be working with immunodeficient mice, in the mistaken assumption that the mice will be safe from prion infection. The recommendation of this paper is that research lab safety guidelines note aerosols as a possible vector for prion infections, which they do not do now. I don't think this is really a warning aimed at keeping people from being infected. For the time being, at least, it's more about keeping research from being spoiled when lab animals come down with infections from unforeseen aerosol sources.
Wait -- so you're saying you can't read a book that doesn't have phasers in it, so that makes classic literature stupid on a relative basis? Interesting theory.
He told me I'd lose my job if I took the Vacation.
I don't know where you live, but out here in California, I'd be seeing dollar signs as soon as that came out of his mouth. Some of the shit I'm reading about people putting up with in this thread beggars belief.
You call that a troll? I'm dead serious. From my Motorola warranty:
Software Embodied in Physical Media. No warranty is made that the software will meet your requirements or will work in combination with any hardware or software applications provided by third parties, that the operation of the software products will be uninterrupted or error free, or that all defects in the software products will be corrected. Software NOT Embodied in Physical Media. Software that is not embodied in physical media (e.g. software that is downloaded from the Internet), is provided "as is" and without warranty.
Seems pretty clear. You literally have no right to an upgrade from the manufacturer, ever -- and quite frankly the idea that you would have a "right" to an upgrade seems absurd. Manufacturers issue software updates because their competitors do so, and it's relatively inexpensive to do so, and it keeps their customers happy. As soon as that equation stops balancing out in their favor, the product is end-of-lifed.
Don't like it? Find me a manufacturer who will promise you anything different and I might jump ship with you. But promises = money, so I doubt you'll have much luck.
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.
And why should it? How many Android phones would manufacturers be able to put on the market if every single one of them had an identical experience, but on slightly different hardware? Allowing phone makers to innovate on top of the base OS is the whole point of releasing Android as an open OS. In case you hadn't noticed, Google even competes with the other manufacturers with its own branded phones! If handset makers can't develop UIs that people like, is Google to blame? Don't buy those phones.
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.
When I first read this story I misread the first line and though the scientist had won the Nobel Prize for this research. Later I realized I recognized his name. Luc Montagnier, FWIW, won the Prize in 2008 for being the first to isolate HIV (at a time when its exact role in AIDS was unknown). He's since remained pretty prominent in HIV/AIDS research.
This other research, however, seems a lot more fringe-y and questionable, and now that I know the Nobel Committee has not endorsed it I will view it with a serious dose of skepticism until his findings can be repeated.
For example education for all people under the age of 18 regardless of nationality... I believe the federal government should foot the bill for any things that they mandate by law.
Thing is, the Constitution of the United States does not say you have a right to education -- so the federal government has not mandated free education by law, contrary to your claim. California did that. The Constitution of California, Article 9, Section 5 says: "The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six months in every year, after the first year in which a school has been established."
On the other hand, article 14 of the Constitution of the United States says (among other things): "... nor shall any State... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That's any person, not any citizen. So in a way, California has done it to itself: By offering "free school" at all, it has to offer free school to any person, not just any U.S. citizen within its jurisdiction.
This was a pretty hard-won interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to education, back from the days when states were trying to keep Blacks from attending schools, and it's not about to change. Nor would most states want Federal government interference in the administration of their school systems. (Can you imagine George W. Bush having a hand in the running of UC Berkeley?)
If California wants to get money from the Federal government, why not ask for more money for upkeep of its prison system, to hold all the criminals it must house under Federal drug laws?
Last time I checked, California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt.
California won't go bankrupt. It might default on its debts, but it won't go bankrupt -- because it doesn't need to. Under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution, no state government can be directly sued in Federal court. If you can't be sued, there's no procedure by which creditors can recover what you owe them. So if creditors can't go after what states owe, there's no reason for states to file bankruptcy, because all bankruptcy provides is legal protection -- which the states already have.
FWIW, my Motorola Defy on T-Mobile shipped with the "Allow Non-Market Sources" option enabled by default. I thought it was a little odd, but it might be because T-Mobile wants to ship you some of its own apps OTA without going through the Market...
So you're saying maybe there's no buyer on deck today, but NewsCorp sees a time (next year? the year after?) when it no longer wants to sink money into a failed experiment. Could be.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, I object to the characterization of Facebook as a better place to work that Google.
Yeah, I think someone's been doing a few too many lunches with Facebook reps. I've never heard this one. To be perfectly honest, the one company I still hear "vital engineers" talk about working for (if they can't work at Google) is Microsoft. /.ers may hate Microsoft on principle, but where else could you go and end up working on .... well, you name it. Look at all the stuff coming out of Microsoft Research, even if it's never productized. An engineer who goes to work for a start-up might get to work on one really interesting idea, for stock options. An engineer who goes to Microsoft and gets disillusioned with one idea can get transferred to another one and still keep seniority and a highly competitive compensation package. Facebook? It might have a big valuation, but it sounds like just another Web start-up to me -- a few opportunities for engineers, but a lot more for marketing types and other "visionaries."
No one is forced to support a corporation
Really? Suppose your corrupt government sells your water supply to private interests? (Yes, I know this was the plot of Quantum of Solace, but that script was based on actual events.)
As much as I distrust the motivations of some corporations I distrust governments even more . So I view Google's defiance of the Chinese government as a victory for freedom and individual liberty.
I'm sure that's a comforting point of view for you to hold. But how do you know Google didn't defy the Chinese government because the U.S. government offered it something to do so? As a global corporation with offices in some 40 countries -- some of which are to some degree authoritarian, and others of which take a considerably more socialized view of business than the U.S. currently does -- the idea that Google is busy battling governments in the name of "freedom and individual liberty" isn't very credible.
Please for the love of god, learn WTF you're talking about. There is no such thing as an "african-american" dialect. As I said, it's people too stupid to learn the language of their own country.
No, actually, much of the African-American dialect is invented intentionally -- much like the Jamaican patois -- as a way to provide solidarity among the black community. It's also incredibly hypocritical for a white guy to claim blacks are "too stupid" to learn the language of "their country," when blacks were first kidnapped from their real countries and enslaved, then denied equal access to education for decades, all by racist assholes like you.
which makes YOU the racist asshole for thinking that they're incapable of learning English as any other native born American would simply because they're black
Well make up your mind, David Duke -- are they "too stupid" to learn, or can they not learn because I'm a racist? Sounds like you're the only one saying they can't learn, to me.
What I'm saying is that it might be nice if America did something to help black students get better education, after having been denied equal opportunities in the United States for generations. Economic status and education are highly correlated. A parent who was shot at by the National Guard when they tried to go to college is probably not going to raise their children in high economic status, and therefore the cycle of poor education continues.
But no -- you, from your position of privilege, get to look at an entire class of people and declare them "too stupid." They just coincidentally happen to be black, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how stupid, lazy, and ignorant they all are. Presumably they also like to steal. Tell me -- what have your scientific studies revealed regarding the consumption of watermelon or fried chicken?
Ebonics is people too stupid to learn their native language, so they just mumble some shit and then when they're told to learn english if they want a job, they cry and claim it's a "language" and that it's "racist" to not support it.
No. "Ebonics" was a bunch of teachers wanting to get dialect classified as a language, so they could then teach English as a second language. The idea is this: Students whose native language is Spanish come to American schools with many of the same handicaps as people who have grown up only speaking African-American dialect. The difference is that the states and the federal government provide additional funds for English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, but they don't provide any additional funding to help the black students, even though they consistently perform poorly in English classes. By getting Ebonics classified as a language, the teachers hoped to win some of the same additional funding that teachers who teach English to Latino students get.
Unfortunately, nobody outside the Bay Area seems to understand this, and so Ebonics in the rest of America remains just a touchstone to allow racist assholes like you feel good about yourselves.
(There are good western comics I know, *I guess*, I've read great things about The Sandman)
What a lot of these comments are missing is that the Comics Code has not really had much bite since the 1970s. Someone mentioned the anti-drug-abuse story that had to be published without the Code seal because the Code forbade any mention of drugs; that was in the 70s, and the Code was promptly changed. Many other restrictions, such as not allowing comics to make mention of vampires or werewolves, were also removed. The Code of the 80s and later was a far cry from what it originally was in the 50s. And of course, The Sandman was never under the Code to begin with. All the major publishers had lines of non-Code comics as far back as the 80s, and there were a few dozen independent publishers, beginning around the same time, that never subscribed to the Code at all. So this "event" (the death of the Code) is kind of a snooze; nobody has really cared in years.
So yeah -- you just prefer manga.
The only reason such "codes" could fly is that the makers of art had to rely on a distribution system that could force such arbitrary restrictions on them.
Actually there's a theory (which I'm not sure I totally buy) that the whole thing was contrived as a way to destroy E.C. Comics.
At the time, E.C. -- the publisher of Tales from the Crypt, the Vault of Horror, the Haunt of Fear, and Weird Science, among others -- was the best-selling comics publisher in the industry. It was a bona fide phenomenon. Many publishers tried to imitate E.C.'s success, but none were able to truly recreate its unique formula of quality art and stories.
So instead, the also-ran publishers colluded to knock E.C. out of the market. Many of the objections raised in the Congressional hearings on comic books were examples taken directly from E.C. Comics covers and stories. Much of the language of the Code seemed to directly target E.C. -- for example, comics were not allowed to use the words "terror," "horror," or "fear" in their titles. The Code pretty much made it impossible for E.C. to continue to publish its top-selling titles in their original form, because when the smaller publishers all voluntarily jumped on board with the Code, distributors soon stopped shipping comics that didn't carry the Code seal on their covers.
At the time, the E.C. horror titles were still so popular that it was getting ready to publish the Crypt of Terror, a fourth title featuring its Crypt-Keeper character. Only one issue of that title was ever produced; instead, the Code killed all four titles.
While the rest of the industry continued on with superheroes and newspaper strip reprints, E.C. tried to launch a new line of titles with subjects like medical dramas, war stories, pirates, and (believe it or not) true tales of psychoanalysis. None of them were successful. Before long, E.C. Comics had vanished from the racks, with the company's only remaining product being the (admittedly successful) Mad Magazine.
Like I said, I'm not totally sure I believe this interpretation -- it seems odd that so many publishers, who were themselves publishing horror titles, would rather shoot themselves in the foot than compete honestly -- but it is pretty odd when a company can go from being the industry leader to practically filing for bankruptcy, not because of government regulation (there never was any), but solely because its competitors chose to collude on a voluntary censorship scheme... don't ya think?
RIM has always enjoyed customer loyalty comparable only to Apple's. They don't call them "CrackBerrys" for nothing. But it's precisely because of this that they face a tough challenge: They need to evolve their product fast enough to keep up with the other smartphone platforms, but they can't change it so much that they alienate their hardcore base. RIM may have leaned too far toward conservatism, though, because their current figures show most of their new subscribers are coming from the lower-end handsets in their product range. That suggests the more savvy consumers with more money to spend are wandering off to iPhone and Android, which is bad, because "business types" represented RIM's hardcore demographic.
Yeah, except for the part about BlackBerry being an "also-ran OS," when in fact BlackBerry is still the leading smartphone platform in the U.S.
Will Google only use webm for YouTube, forcing me to use its plugin so I can watch silly videos?
Could be. Are you forced to watch silly videos?
If I use Google's plug-in, will they track all my internet activity?
No, but if you use YouTube or other Google services, with or without a plugin, they will.
While Google will provide support to other desktop browsers, will they use this as a wedge against iPhone/mobile safari?
How would they do that? iPhones can view YouTube videos now, and Apple isn't going to let that feature disappear. WebM is an open codec. If users need WebM support to view YouTube videos, Apple will provide WebM support.
After 15+ years of this "ice 9" business I'm still waiting for results that in any way meet Koch's Postulates.
But Laura Manuelidis is claiming that vCJD and others are caused by "a slow-acting virus"... and Koch's Postulates aren't strictly applicable to viruses either. The best that Manuelidis has managed to do is to isolate "virus-like DNA signatures" -- which does not even prove the presence of a virus, let alone that a virus is causative. So in the best case scenario, Manuelidis may have raised some questions, but has been no more successful at meeting your preconditions for accuracy than anybody else. You apparently just think she's "fighting the good fight" because -- much like Jenny McCarthy -- she questions the prevailing theory. That attitude is bad science.
How long do the exist in prion form left to themselves I wonder. Can they exist in some dried powder form forever? Or do they spontaneously disintegrate into constituent compounds?
Scientists have taken prion-infected tissue and reduced it to ashes in a crucible at 600 C, and there were still viable, infective prions in the ashes.
I am not a biologist, but based on my reading of TFA, the scientists successfully infected immunodeficient and immunocompetent mice. It's counterintuitive, but the fact that the disease incubated in the immunodeficient mice at the same rate as the immunocompetent mice is what makes the research significant.
The immune system actually seems to play some kind of a role in prion diseases, acting as a kind of Trojan horse mechanism to spread the infection. It's not totally clear how this works, but the research supports that it happens. So what these scientists did is they inoculated immunodeficient mice with prions and observed them coming down with the prion disease in pretty much the exact same way as the immunocompetent ones. This establishes that a functioning immune system is not actually necessary for infection via aerosol. This means that an immunodeficient mouse, even when kept in semi-isolation, can potentially come down with a prion disease from an aerosol source even when it doesn't come in direct contact with any infected tissues.
That's a pretty big deal when you consider a lot of scientists in research laboratories might be working with immunodeficient mice, in the mistaken assumption that the mice will be safe from prion infection. The recommendation of this paper is that research lab safety guidelines note aerosols as a possible vector for prion infections, which they do not do now. I don't think this is really a warning aimed at keeping people from being infected. For the time being, at least, it's more about keeping research from being spoiled when lab animals come down with infections from unforeseen aerosol sources.
Wait -- so you're saying you can't read a book that doesn't have phasers in it, so that makes classic literature stupid on a relative basis? Interesting theory.
He told me I'd lose my job if I took the Vacation.
I don't know where you live, but out here in California, I'd be seeing dollar signs as soon as that came out of his mouth. Some of the shit I'm reading about people putting up with in this thread beggars belief.
You call that a troll? I'm dead serious. From my Motorola warranty:
Software Embodied in Physical Media. No warranty is made that the software will meet your requirements or will work in combination with any hardware or software applications provided by third parties, that the operation of the software products will be uninterrupted or error free, or that all defects in the software products will be corrected.
Software NOT Embodied in Physical Media. Software that is not embodied in physical media (e.g. software that is downloaded from the Internet), is provided "as is" and without warranty.
Seems pretty clear. You literally have no right to an upgrade from the manufacturer, ever -- and quite frankly the idea that you would have a "right" to an upgrade seems absurd. Manufacturers issue software updates because their competitors do so, and it's relatively inexpensive to do so, and it keeps their customers happy. As soon as that equation stops balancing out in their favor, the product is end-of-lifed.
Don't like it? Find me a manufacturer who will promise you anything different and I might jump ship with you. But promises = money, so I doubt you'll have much luck.
Customers should demand that the phone's come with documentation stating A) What upgrade rights the customer has
None. The product was sold as-is. You have the rights delineated in your warranty, which is included in the box. Next question?
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.
And why should it? How many Android phones would manufacturers be able to put on the market if every single one of them had an identical experience, but on slightly different hardware? Allowing phone makers to innovate on top of the base OS is the whole point of releasing Android as an open OS. In case you hadn't noticed, Google even competes with the other manufacturers with its own branded phones! If handset makers can't develop UIs that people like, is Google to blame? Don't buy those phones.
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.
When I first read this story I misread the first line and though the scientist had won the Nobel Prize for this research. Later I realized I recognized his name. Luc Montagnier, FWIW, won the Prize in 2008 for being the first to isolate HIV (at a time when its exact role in AIDS was unknown). He's since remained pretty prominent in HIV/AIDS research.
This other research, however, seems a lot more fringe-y and questionable, and now that I know the Nobel Committee has not endorsed it I will view it with a serious dose of skepticism until his findings can be repeated.
For example education for all people under the age of 18 regardless of nationality ... I believe the federal government should foot the bill for any things that they mandate by law.
Thing is, the Constitution of the United States does not say you have a right to education -- so the federal government has not mandated free education by law, contrary to your claim. California did that. The Constitution of California, Article 9, Section 5 says: "The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six months in every year, after the first year in which a school has been established."
On the other hand, article 14 of the Constitution of the United States says (among other things): "... nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That's any person, not any citizen. So in a way, California has done it to itself: By offering "free school" at all, it has to offer free school to any person, not just any U.S. citizen within its jurisdiction.
This was a pretty hard-won interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to education, back from the days when states were trying to keep Blacks from attending schools, and it's not about to change. Nor would most states want Federal government interference in the administration of their school systems. (Can you imagine George W. Bush having a hand in the running of UC Berkeley?)
If California wants to get money from the Federal government, why not ask for more money for upkeep of its prison system, to hold all the criminals it must house under Federal drug laws?
Last time I checked, California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt.
California won't go bankrupt. It might default on its debts, but it won't go bankrupt -- because it doesn't need to. Under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution, no state government can be directly sued in Federal court. If you can't be sued, there's no procedure by which creditors can recover what you owe them. So if creditors can't go after what states owe, there's no reason for states to file bankruptcy, because all bankruptcy provides is legal protection -- which the states already have.
FWIW, my Motorola Defy on T-Mobile shipped with the "Allow Non-Market Sources" option enabled by default. I thought it was a little odd, but it might be because T-Mobile wants to ship you some of its own apps OTA without going through the Market...
I'd figure any real covert video of a real prototype Apple product would be far too valuable and difficult to obtain to just post on YouTube for free.
Maybe, but on the Android phone all it needs to start working again is a power cycle, not a battery pull. Unfortunately, that has to be done manually.
So you're saying maybe there's no buyer on deck today, but NewsCorp sees a time (next year? the year after?) when it no longer wants to sink money into a failed experiment. Could be.