Ipads dont have rotation lock like the Galaxy Tab.
If you ever get a chance to use a real tablet, check the sides. That's where the iPad keeps the rotation lock.
You mean a physical hardware rotation lock? I didn't realize that.
Another complaint that I've heard from iPad owners was that their rotation lock was only application-specific, not system-wide (on Android, it's system-wide which in hindsight would seem like the only natural way to do it). Were those people also only talking about their first generation iPads, and not the the second generation? Or may be, they were just idiots (since their complaints seemed to contradict your claim). That, I actually don't know.
It'll probably be really easy for you to find as I'm sure Samsung just put it in exactly the same place.
Only the Toshiba Android tablet has a physical hardware rotation lock (that I've seen, and no, I haven't been at the last CES, so there should be more by now). The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 has its rotation lock in software accessible from the bottom right corner of its screen (like most of the Android tablets), and as I said it's system-wide. Personally, I would prefer having it as a hardware button like the Toshiba Android tablet did it (thought, I didn't care much for the rest of the Toshiba tablet).
You should try halogen lamps. They have a wider spectrum of light.
One issue with halogen lamps is that they're more prone to cause fires (if a curtain touches the bulb), so many manufacturers have removed them from consumer offerings for liability reasons, but halogen lamps (or halogena bulbs) are still the de facto standard for galleries and stores that care about having the most attractive displays.
We track everything (allowable by law). We track as much as possible and for as long as possible. This P3P policy couldn't possibly summarize everything we track, we just track too much.
A colleague of mine had major problems with Delta and his visa. He was going to China, and had a return flight 60 days after he left. His visa was only good to stay 30 days. They refused to let him on the plane. Of course, he had planned to go to Hong Kong after 28 days, stay for 3, and then return to mainland China (possible with his multiple entry visa), all of which is fully legal.
To be fair to the airline rep, sometimes airplanes are way overbooked and the only way to make some space (without costing your airline an arm and a leg) is to find an excuse to not let the surplus of passengers get on that plane in the first place.
I guess you don't believe in that right, otherwise you'd be obligated to be against the death penalty for all death row inmates.
...no "rights violation" happens when a hawk kills a pigeon.
No "rights violation" happens when a bear kills a man either. It would be pretty lame to call it that. It's not like the bear would understand those words anyway. A bear kills a man, and then the bear gets put down. It's as simple as that. There is no need to be pedantic about it.
animals rights are violated when people kill them -- at least, according to the "animal rights" activists.
It really depends on which "animal rights" activists you speak to. Some "animal rights" activists still eat meat for instance (although, they get it at the supermarket). And even among non-activists, many of us would still feel anger and moral outrage against a drunken person beating his own dog for no reason. That is one reason we have "animal cruelty" laws on the books in many places.
This was their "pigeon shoot." It was CLAY PIGEONS!! A charity benefit for skeet shooting.
How do you know? The event you're pointing out was scheduled for February 18th. The story itself was posted on February 14th, so the confrontation must have happened well before that event you're citing. Don't you think it would make sense for a shooting range to have both kinds of pigeons anyway? I would think that trucking in live pigeons would be considerably more expensive than trucking in clay pigeons. And also, clay pigeons would be a safer bet, for an event planner, should that "animal rights" group/person decide to disturb the place again.
This guy Hindi is beyond hilarious. He has a record of this type of behavior...a criminal record, apparently. According to commenters of the original story he used a parachute to disrupt a hunting activity... a parachute he was flying. He was held without bail and then hunger-striked his way out.
Yes, the guy is a huge idiot. You don't run toward the guys with the guns, you want to run away from them (let alone, flying down in a parachute, that's like putting a bulls-eye on your head). That being said, everyone is entitled to a speedy trial and a reasonable bail, even huge idiots.
And from what you're describing, if this was the worst offense he ever committed, it doesn't sound like he was a flight risk. If nothing else, this guy sounds like a zealout and an attention-whore, my bet would be that such an individual wouldn't miss his court date for anything.
Most animal rights activists only care about cute animals. And only the most extreme of them will care about pigeons. In this case, I think these animal rights activists were more interested in flying their little helicopter.
Now if we could find a cool way to kill pigeons with those little helicopters (or little toy airplanes), I'd be all in.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The issue here is that they were denied permission to fly the chopper and did it anyhow. That's the first breach of law.
Is it? Commercial planes don't need any permission to overfly property. Or does that only apply above a certain altitude?
Toy aircrafts/drones in the US can fly up to 400 feet without permission. In any case from the article, it isn't clear whether the cops were there to tell them not to fly it, or whether they were just escorting the lawyer when he went to meet with the animal group.
By the way, does anyone know why the pigeon shoot was cancelled? Personally, I would have staid to shoot the pigeons.
Yeah, except depending on facebook's "loose" vs "strict" interpretations of their own terms of service, you're violating their EULA by creating that second account.
And let's face it, you may just be ripping off sites like Facebook when you create a second free account on their site for yourself at the request of your employer. Now I can't say I'm really familiar with Facebook's Terms of Services, so I can't really comment on Facebook itself, but on sites like Twitter and Gmail, a company can get ad-free work accounts for its own employees if it's willing to pay money for those accounts (on Google+, this may not have happened yet, but the last I heard, business accounts were in the works on there too).
And the only reason there are potential problems with employee accounts for current employers right now is usually because many companies are too cheap to pay for accounts for its employees in the first place. Because when you pay for those accounts, they give you tools to administrate those accounts and they give you tools to place limits on those accounts, and the billing ensures a custody of ownership of those accounts as well, but certainly don't count on those advantages if you're not willing to pay for them.
When you're requesting your employee to use a free account for work-related stuff, he'll either use his existing personal account for all work-related stuff, or he'll create a second free (personal) account, thereby potentially breaking the Terms of Services of the service he's using. As an employer, either outcome should be highly undesirable, because either way, no matter what you wrote into your contract with that employee, you'd probably risk losing the control of those accounts if the employee ever left you.
Using a free account when you shouldn't be is just like using shareware that's free for personal use (but not free for work). Such a limitation can be super easy to go around, but then please do not start pretending to play the victim when you find out you've lost some of your property rights as an employer because you were too cheap to properly equip your employees in the first place.
The best theoretic models predict that this will cause the polar ice caps to change: some cause it to melt, others to increase in size. Both outcomes are dire, massive increase in ocean levels resulting in New York becoming New Venice or a mile thick wall of ice rolling down over the Northern Hemisphere.
Are those two the "best" models and resulting outcomes that you could come up with? Seriously? You're not just pulling our leg? You actually believe that the two best models will result into what Hollywood has portrayed on film?
That's such a small fee vs what people have had to pay for limited copyright infringements..
Keep in mind that the flat fee last year was $3.75 (which was paid through the University), plus an additional sum per page for course packs (which are usually paid and collected through the stores where the course packs are purchased).
And if I'm reading the article and the backgrounder correctly, the flat fee has increased to $27.50, but the additional fee for each page hasn't gone away, and most likely the traditional penalties for copyright infringement haven't gone away either (if nothing else, the number of those so-called copyright "infringements" may begin exploding, where previously there used to be none, now that Access-Copyright is trying to creatively redefine and broaden what an infringement is supposed to be).
Actually on second thought, I wonder if the offices of the targets were far enough away from each other and if the same cleaners didn't get far many more requests for opening doors that they usually did on a given night -- thus raising their suspicions a little bit.
It doesn't mention whether the cleaners or caretakers knew the people they were letting in or not.
Given that the University has 9,000 students and 3,300 faculty/staff, and that they were 60 attempts of thefts (only 30 of which succeeded). And given that this experiment was conducted in the context of a security audit, I doubt that the successful cases were all due the cleaners actually knowing the student (may be some of them knew some of the students, but surely not all of them did, and in at least one case, the student got to the laptop just because the door was found unlocked when the door was supposed to be locked).
Besides, "knowing" someone and building rapport can be faked in an extremely short amount of time. For instance, when Steven Spielberg was still a teenager, he got into the Universal Studios through a guided tour, but when he left the Studio that night, he escaped from the guided tour, he dressed himself up in a suit, and he made a point to address the guard on his way out by his first name. After that night, he was able to go back and forth through that security checkpoint as long as that same guard was there, no questions asked. He was wearing the right uniform, a suit, plus the guard "knew" him from the previous day.
This sounds like Pwn2Own taken to the next (and otherwise illegal) level.
They did not do anything illegal. They technically didn't trespass, they had prior permission from the University Security office. And they technically didn't steal anything but loaner laptops that had been loaned out to staff for the express purpose of this experiment.
The only reason you think they might have done something illegal is because of this phrase in the summary: "They were not prosecuted for this, so they could just get on with their studies." And the fact is, this sentence is just poorly worded (by the original non-native English author), and they were not prosecuted for this, not because of some weird altruist reason given by the University. The real reason they were not prosecuted is because they were given prior permission to do this experiment by the University Security office itself (and furthermore, the laptops they were stealing had been supplied by the grad student who wanted them stolen in the first place).
So in all regards, this seems like this was a well executed experiment. And it goes without saying that you should get prior permission before doing any kind of penetration testing or security audit. And ideally, such a permission should be clearly spelled out and obtained in writing, since executives have been known to go back on their word with security auditors once they find out how bad their security really is.
Also note that sometimes, con artists will recruit people to steal things for them under the guise of having them doing a security audit, so if you're going to participate in such an audit yourself, you better be damn sure that the person who's asking you to do such an audit is really the person they're claiming to be (and even if they are, that they're not setting you up for a theft that they've already committed themselves).
the chinese sold them a plot of land in a flood plain so they could not use the first floor for about half the year.
Sorry, but those guys sound like idiots.
Whether you're in the US, or in China, there is such a thing called due diligence. Either they made the trade-off decision to knowingly buy heavily discounted land in a flood plain, and accepted the risk commensurate with that choice, or they were just sheer incompetent lazy idiots and the project was doomed from the very beginning.
And yes, I've been involved in purchasing land abroad (not in Asia thought), and I've been shown land in flood plains before (after all, local sellers and local real estate agents see foreigners as easy marks for not knowing the lay of the land, and not knowing the lay of the local legal landscape either).
After all, he's not doing anything wrong...he's got nothing to hide.
This guy is most likely just pulling a Mark Foley on us. It's usually not a coincidence that the most repressive zealots also happen to be some of the most rampant rapists and pedophiles. Rape is usually not about sex, it's about lording power over someone.
Catholic Priests, Congressmen protecting the children, Irish Nuns, Muslim Mullahs, and Japanese Businessmen. It's not that those groups are more sexual than others, it's just that those groups are in the habit of repressing others *and* of being repressed by others, so the members of those groups are the most likely to practice sex in the most coercive and extremely perverse ways.
Yes, I realize you're kidding to an extent, but the entire point of this exercise would be not to antagonize those people you're trying to help quit smoking.
If you make the videos too annoying, or the designated area(s) too annoying, the kiosk will get vandalized in no time, the area(s) will get avoided and ignored by your target audience. Or may be worse, those people your'e trying to help may get so annoyed -- they'll light up more cigarettes than usual just and they'll make it a point of pride to combat the program you've set up for them.
Correct me I'm wrong, as I'm not in the know, but wouldn't this be a plus for rom development on motorola droid phones?
It could.
With HTC officially unlocking its bootloaders and Samsung officially hiring the Cyanogen guy (and then encouraging him to continue doing his custom rom development on the side -- with a healthy salary and no strings attached), custom Android rom development is looking very promising all around.
They won't be suing Apple, nor Microsoft out of existence.
Motorola will be doing most of the suing I bet (at least for the patent portfolio it's already holding). Since Apple and Microsoft are using intermediaries to do some of their suing, I would expect Google to do a little bit of the same as well. Using proxies would compartmentalize some of the risks of losing some lawsuits (I would assume).
...some kickass tablets and phones running Jelly Bean or Krispy Kreme, or whatever those letters end up being.
Krispy Kreme is trademarked. Jelly bean seems not to be.
A little known fact, the reason Android is now using generic pastry names is because they were originally using well-known android names, but they were afraid they'd get sued by the IP owners of those Android characters.
Aside from looking for the keywords "kiosk-mode" when searching for a solution tailored to the OS you have in mind, I'd suggest you revisit this entire tablet idea in the first place. Your tablet will most likely be locked down to some heavy furniture for security reasons, so what is the point of making it an expensive fragile tablet anyway. Also, it will require headsets unless you want to bother all the employees and fellow patients with the sound of those videos.
If I were you, I'd make a real kiosk and I'd place an old television and VCR in it, with a couple of directional speakers (like what they use in museums). And I'd place the kiosk outside in a location where all the patient smokers actually go to smoke a cigarette. My mother does that, she smokes a cigarette before she enters an hospital, and she smokes one as soon as she gets out of one.
If there are no obvious central locations for visiting smokers to congregate, I'd suggest you create one or two first and actually make sure that those areas get used by real smokers that frequent your medical center (before you start investing too much energy in placing kiosks at those locations). The worst thing you can have is a designated area for smokers that nobody actually uses, despite the fact that everybody continues on smoking anyway near the entrance and exits of your Medical Center.
In any case, this was just an idea. I realize you're only the techie implementing this, not the guy making the actual decision, but I just thought I'd throw my half-baked idea in anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Ipads dont have rotation lock like the Galaxy Tab.
If you ever get a chance to use a real tablet, check the sides. That's where the iPad keeps the rotation lock.
You mean a physical hardware rotation lock? I didn't realize that.
Another complaint that I've heard from iPad owners was that their rotation lock was only application-specific, not system-wide (on Android, it's system-wide which in hindsight would seem like the only natural way to do it). Were those people also only talking about their first generation iPads, and not the the second generation? Or may be, they were just idiots (since their complaints seemed to contradict your claim). That, I actually don't know.
It'll probably be really easy for you to find as I'm sure Samsung just put it in exactly the same place.
Only the Toshiba Android tablet has a physical hardware rotation lock (that I've seen, and no, I haven't been at the last CES, so there should be more by now). The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 has its rotation lock in software accessible from the bottom right corner of its screen (like most of the Android tablets), and as I said it's system-wide. Personally, I would prefer having it as a hardware button like the Toshiba Android tablet did it (thought, I didn't care much for the rest of the Toshiba tablet).
As in, four 300W fluorescent bulbs.
You should try halogen lamps. They have a wider spectrum of light.
One issue with halogen lamps is that they're more prone to cause fires (if a curtain touches the bulb), so many manufacturers have removed them from consumer offerings for liability reasons, but halogen lamps (or halogena bulbs) are still the de facto standard for galleries and stores that care about having the most attractive displays.
Or they could just say the truth:
We track everything (allowable by law). We track as much as possible and for as long as possible. This P3P policy couldn't possibly summarize everything we track, we just track too much.
A colleague of mine had major problems with Delta and his visa. He was going to China, and had a return flight 60 days after he left. His visa was only good to stay 30 days. They refused to let him on the plane. Of course, he had planned to go to Hong Kong after 28 days, stay for 3, and then return to mainland China (possible with his multiple entry visa), all of which is fully legal.
To be fair to the airline rep, sometimes airplanes are way overbooked and the only way to make some space (without costing your airline an arm and a leg) is to find an excuse to not let the surplus of passengers get on that plane in the first place.
A human has the right to live.
I guess you don't believe in that right, otherwise you'd be obligated to be against the death penalty for all death row inmates.
...no "rights violation" happens when a hawk kills a pigeon.
No "rights violation" happens when a bear kills a man either. It would be pretty lame to call it that. It's not like the bear would understand those words anyway. A bear kills a man, and then the bear gets put down. It's as simple as that. There is no need to be pedantic about it.
animals rights are violated when people kill them -- at least, according to the "animal rights" activists.
It really depends on which "animal rights" activists you speak to. Some "animal rights" activists still eat meat for instance (although, they get it at the supermarket). And even among non-activists, many of us would still feel anger and moral outrage against a drunken person beating his own dog for no reason. That is one reason we have "animal cruelty" laws on the books in many places.
Hilarious! Where does the stupidity end?
http://www.connect.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150417882782746&set=a.362494502745.165721.340808377745&type=1&ref=nf
This was their "pigeon shoot." It was CLAY PIGEONS!! A charity benefit for skeet shooting.
How do you know? The event you're pointing out was scheduled for February 18th. The story itself was posted on February 14th, so the confrontation must have happened well before that event you're citing. Don't you think it would make sense for a shooting range to have both kinds of pigeons anyway? I would think that trucking in live pigeons would be considerably more expensive than trucking in clay pigeons. And also, clay pigeons would be a safer bet, for an event planner, should that "animal rights" group/person decide to disturb the place again.
This guy Hindi is beyond hilarious. He has a record of this type of behavior...a criminal record, apparently. According to commenters of the original story he used a parachute to disrupt a hunting activity... a parachute he was flying. He was held without bail and then hunger-striked his way out.
Yes, the guy is a huge idiot. You don't run toward the guys with the guns, you want to run away from them (let alone, flying down in a parachute, that's like putting a bulls-eye on your head). That being said, everyone is entitled to a speedy trial and a reasonable bail, even huge idiots.
And from what you're describing, if this was the worst offense he ever committed, it doesn't sound like he was a flight risk. If nothing else, this guy sounds like a zealout and an attention-whore, my bet would be that such an individual wouldn't miss his court date for anything.
Most animal rights activists only care about cute animals. And only the most extreme of them will care about pigeons. In this case, I think these animal rights activists were more interested in flying their little helicopter.
Now if we could find a cool way to kill pigeons with those little helicopters (or little toy airplanes), I'd be all in.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The issue here is that they were denied permission to fly the chopper and did it anyhow. That's the first breach of law.
Is it? Commercial planes don't need any permission to overfly property. Or does that only apply above a certain altitude?
Toy aircrafts/drones in the US can fly up to 400 feet without permission. In any case from the article, it isn't clear whether the cops were there to tell them not to fly it, or whether they were just escorting the lawyer when he went to meet with the animal group.
By the way, does anyone know why the pigeon shoot was cancelled? Personally, I would have staid to shoot the pigeons.
Yeah, except depending on facebook's "loose" vs "strict" interpretations of their own terms of service, you're violating their EULA by creating that second account.
And let's face it, you may just be ripping off sites like Facebook when you create a second free account on their site for yourself at the request of your employer. Now I can't say I'm really familiar with Facebook's Terms of Services, so I can't really comment on Facebook itself, but on sites like Twitter and Gmail, a company can get ad-free work accounts for its own employees if it's willing to pay money for those accounts (on Google+, this may not have happened yet, but the last I heard, business accounts were in the works on there too).
And the only reason there are potential problems with employee accounts for current employers right now is usually because many companies are too cheap to pay for accounts for its employees in the first place. Because when you pay for those accounts, they give you tools to administrate those accounts and they give you tools to place limits on those accounts, and the billing ensures a custody of ownership of those accounts as well, but certainly don't count on those advantages if you're not willing to pay for them.
When you're requesting your employee to use a free account for work-related stuff, he'll either use his existing personal account for all work-related stuff, or he'll create a second free (personal) account, thereby potentially breaking the Terms of Services of the service he's using. As an employer, either outcome should be highly undesirable, because either way, no matter what you wrote into your contract with that employee, you'd probably risk losing the control of those accounts if the employee ever left you.
Using a free account when you shouldn't be is just like using shareware that's free for personal use (but not free for work). Such a limitation can be super easy to go around, but then please do not start pretending to play the victim when you find out you've lost some of your property rights as an employer because you were too cheap to properly equip your employees in the first place.
The best theoretic models predict that this will cause the polar ice caps to change: some cause it to melt, others to increase in size. Both outcomes are dire, massive increase in ocean levels resulting in New York becoming New Venice or a mile thick wall of ice rolling down over the Northern Hemisphere.
Are those two the "best" models and resulting outcomes that you could come up with? Seriously? You're not just pulling our leg? You actually believe that the two best models will result into what Hollywood has portrayed on film?
That's such a small fee vs what people have had to pay for limited copyright infringements..
Keep in mind that the flat fee last year was $3.75 (which was paid through the University), plus an additional sum per page for course packs (which are usually paid and collected through the stores where the course packs are purchased).
And if I'm reading the article and the backgrounder correctly, the flat fee has increased to $27.50, but the additional fee for each page hasn't gone away, and most likely the traditional penalties for copyright infringement haven't gone away either (if nothing else, the number of those so-called copyright "infringements" may begin exploding, where previously there used to be none, now that Access-Copyright is trying to creatively redefine and broaden what an infringement is supposed to be).
Switching University may not be enough, they'll also need to ensure they don't send emails to anyone on those two University email systems.
Are there any privacy-focused email Block Lists one could subscribe to?
Actually on second thought, I wonder if the offices of the targets were far enough away from each other and if the same cleaners didn't get far many more requests for opening doors that they usually did on a given night -- thus raising their suspicions a little bit.
Ah ok, now I see what you're saying! Yes, it could be interpreted that way too. Please ignore my previous anonymous reply.
The original parent will have to clarify what he meant, because in my personal opinion, it could still be interpreted either way.
It doesn't mention whether the cleaners or caretakers knew the people they were letting in or not.
Given that the University has 9,000 students and 3,300 faculty/staff, and that they were 60 attempts of thefts (only 30 of which succeeded). And given that this experiment was conducted in the context of a security audit, I doubt that the successful cases were all due the cleaners actually knowing the student (may be some of them knew some of the students, but surely not all of them did, and in at least one case, the student got to the laptop just because the door was found unlocked when the door was supposed to be locked).
Besides, "knowing" someone and building rapport can be faked in an extremely short amount of time. For instance, when Steven Spielberg was still a teenager, he got into the Universal Studios through a guided tour, but when he left the Studio that night, he escaped from the guided tour, he dressed himself up in a suit, and he made a point to address the guard on his way out by his first name. After that night, he was able to go back and forth through that security checkpoint as long as that same guard was there, no questions asked. He was wearing the right uniform, a suit, plus the guard "knew" him from the previous day.
This sounds like Pwn2Own taken to the next (and otherwise illegal) level .
They did not do anything illegal. They technically didn't trespass, they had prior permission from the University Security office. And they technically didn't steal anything but loaner laptops that had been loaned out to staff for the express purpose of this experiment.
The only reason you think they might have done something illegal is because of this phrase in the summary: "They were not prosecuted for this, so they could just get on with their studies." And the fact is, this sentence is just poorly worded (by the original non-native English author), and they were not prosecuted for this, not because of some weird altruist reason given by the University. The real reason they were not prosecuted is because they were given prior permission to do this experiment by the University Security office itself (and furthermore, the laptops they were stealing had been supplied by the grad student who wanted them stolen in the first place).
So in all regards, this seems like this was a well executed experiment. And it goes without saying that you should get prior permission before doing any kind of penetration testing or security audit. And ideally, such a permission should be clearly spelled out and obtained in writing, since executives have been known to go back on their word with security auditors once they find out how bad their security really is.
Also note that sometimes, con artists will recruit people to steal things for them under the guise of having them doing a security audit, so if you're going to participate in such an audit yourself, you better be damn sure that the person who's asking you to do such an audit is really the person they're claiming to be (and even if they are, that they're not setting you up for a theft that they've already committed themselves).
the chinese sold them a plot of land in a flood plain so they could not use the first floor for about half the year.
Sorry, but those guys sound like idiots.
Whether you're in the US, or in China, there is such a thing called due diligence. Either they made the trade-off decision to knowingly buy heavily discounted land in a flood plain, and accepted the risk commensurate with that choice, or they were just sheer incompetent lazy idiots and the project was doomed from the very beginning.
And yes, I've been involved in purchasing land abroad (not in Asia thought), and I've been shown land in flood plains before (after all, local sellers and local real estate agents see foreigners as easy marks for not knowing the lay of the land, and not knowing the lay of the local legal landscape either).
After all, he's not doing anything wrong...he's got nothing to hide.
This guy is most likely just pulling a Mark Foley on us. It's usually not a coincidence that the most repressive zealots also happen to be some of the most rampant rapists and pedophiles. Rape is usually not about sex, it's about lording power over someone.
Catholic Priests, Congressmen protecting the children, Irish Nuns, Muslim Mullahs, and Japanese Businessmen. It's not that those groups are more sexual than others, it's just that those groups are in the habit of repressing others *and* of being repressed by others, so the members of those groups are the most likely to practice sex in the most coercive and extremely perverse ways.
Yes, I realize you're kidding to an extent, but the entire point of this exercise would be not to antagonize those people you're trying to help quit smoking.
If you make the videos too annoying, or the designated area(s) too annoying, the kiosk will get vandalized in no time, the area(s) will get avoided and ignored by your target audience. Or may be worse, those people your'e trying to help may get so annoyed -- they'll light up more cigarettes than usual just and they'll make it a point of pride to combat the program you've set up for them.
Correct me I'm wrong, as I'm not in the know, but wouldn't this be a plus for rom development on motorola droid phones?
It could.
With HTC officially unlocking its bootloaders and Samsung officially hiring the Cyanogen guy (and then encouraging him to continue doing his custom rom development on the side -- with a healthy salary and no strings attached), custom Android rom development is looking very promising all around.
They won't be suing Apple, nor Microsoft out of existence.
Motorola will be doing most of the suing I bet (at least for the patent portfolio it's already holding). Since Apple and Microsoft are using intermediaries to do some of their suing, I would expect Google to do a little bit of the same as well. Using proxies would compartmentalize some of the risks of losing some lawsuits (I would assume).
...some kickass tablets and phones running Jelly Bean or Krispy Kreme, or whatever those letters end up being.
Krispy Kreme is trademarked. Jelly bean seems not to be.
A little known fact, the reason Android is now using generic pastry names is because they were originally using well-known android names, but they were afraid they'd get sued by the IP owners of those Android characters.
Aside from looking for the keywords "kiosk-mode" when searching for a solution tailored to the OS you have in mind, I'd suggest you revisit this entire tablet idea in the first place. Your tablet will most likely be locked down to some heavy furniture for security reasons, so what is the point of making it an expensive fragile tablet anyway. Also, it will require headsets unless you want to bother all the employees and fellow patients with the sound of those videos.
If I were you, I'd make a real kiosk and I'd place an old television and VCR in it, with a couple of directional speakers (like what they use in museums). And I'd place the kiosk outside in a location where all the patient smokers actually go to smoke a cigarette. My mother does that, she smokes a cigarette before she enters an hospital, and she smokes one as soon as she gets out of one.
If there are no obvious central locations for visiting smokers to congregate, I'd suggest you create one or two first and actually make sure that those areas get used by real smokers that frequent your medical center (before you start investing too much energy in placing kiosks at those locations). The worst thing you can have is a designated area for smokers that nobody actually uses, despite the fact that everybody continues on smoking anyway near the entrance and exits of your Medical Center.
In any case, this was just an idea. I realize you're only the techie implementing this, not the guy making the actual decision, but I just thought I'd throw my half-baked idea in anyway.
There is if you're like me, and just use 4G only when you really need it and for just short amounts of time.
Hopefully, the iPad will start copying the Android tablets at some point.
Those oversized icons look great on a phone, but they only make the tablet look like an oversized phone -- which it's not.