You missed the parent's original point. It's obvious that your point is correct, but let's say if you flash the rom on your ECM and your car keeps on working fine, but develops a completely unrelated leaky roof. Your warranty on the roof should still be valid.
Also, this is weird. Netflix and Hulu+ are able to work on rooted Android devices (they may not be able to run on ICS yet, but that's besides the point).
How come Netflix and Hulu+ have more liberal policies than Google?
Or you could always use pee to generate your own power. You could stick some electrodes into your bladder, or if you're the squimish type, you could just do it the traditional way and refill your phone with fresh pee every 6 hours.
After puzzling over it a while they realized this value was the number of words on their homepage that month; it was this guy's way of reminding them that a simple interface was working well and contrasted distinctly with the likes of yahoo!
Or may be, there was no reason, and this guy was one of these folks here.
Notice how they like to mention that they're the number-one ranked in illegal downloads. Personally, whenever I hear someone claim to be in that number-one spot for anything online, I immediately get suspicious.
In the case of Madonna for instance, she flooded p2p with millions of fake tracks, and then included the fake users downloading those fake tracks in the final tally of people pirating her music. This scheme had several purposes. Aside from making it more difficult for illegal downloaders, and making them download the same track multiple times, it magnified the perception of piracy, increased the perception of possible damages she incurred, but also implied in the media that her music was so popular -- that everybody just had to have it.
Basically, she's the poster child for that kind of market manipulation and PR coups, and this type of practice has been happening since at least 2003. That's why I don't trust any ranking of p2p, or any online poll for that matter, unless I can personally verify a sample of those people doing the downloading/voting in the first place.
I seriously doubt that the problem is that there haven't been enough takers. Yes, it sounds a touch megalomaniacal. But my conclusion is that Google has simply just not raised awareness about this product.
As a former user of the service, I'm actually not that surprised.
Out of all the health services I was personally using, the only service that reliably plugged into it was my Walgreens pharmacy. Of course, my doctor could have used it himself, but I didn't even ask. Ever since I've migrated to the US from France, I've given up asking non-French doctors to fill out my medical blue book (my medical blue book contains all the medical records I've had since I was a baby, I do not know if they still use it in France now, but I love having all my medical information summarized and centralized in one thing that I actually have control over).
For me Google Health was just like a big empty spreadsheet that I needed to fill out manually (except for my medication information which could get automatically imported from my pharmacy). I just didn't see any immediate pay off in taking the time of entering that data in it. May be, if I ever have a kid, it might be cool to start keeping something like that from the very first day of his birth (or even sooner, by recording the prenatal care the mother is given), to later give it to him for his information, but for me personally, it just isn't worth it unless my insurance or my doctor's office started participating in it as well (otherwise, I'd just end up duplicating a lot of information manually without a real reason for it otherwise, or just start using something like Excel/Google Docs instead).
I always believed that the day antivirus software becomes a universally accepted requirement the way it is on Windows...
That day occurred when Outlook would run malicious scripts by default found in received email messages, that had access to the entire OS/hard drive, without any needed user intervention.
For Android, I'm not sure that day has arrived yet, the article is derived from the press release of an antivirus company. Of course, it's going to imply that you absolutely need to buy *their* product (instead of using a little bit of street sense).
Now never mind that Google already has the capability of uninstalling malware from Android that was previously downloaded from their Market (or that you can already download a "Kid Mode" launcher to prevent your kids from installing anything, or just press a button to reset your phone to wipe everything and restore it to its factory settings). Does McAfee think it can act much faster than google in identifying and removing malware? Personally, I doubt that. And never mind that an Android user actually has to locate and tick the checkbox for installing apps from unknown sources (which AT&T doesn't let you do anyway), and then has to accept the permissions to install the application in the first place.
It's not like on the iPhone/iPad where you just need to go to a web page with some jpeg image on it and then your iDevice is magically rooted, and then the iPhone user is free to install any type of malware he wants (McAfee or no McAfee). That's one of the reasons that the McAfee anti-virus software on iOS is even more useless on iOS than on Android, since it can't run in the background and it can't even be scheduled to run at different times. On iOS, it couldn't prevent you from going to a malicious site even if it wanted to.
Their free trial virus scanner does the same thing, it's just slightly more subtle about it. I appreciate the fact that it helps clean up cookies, and I hate ad-network cookies as much as the next guy, but labeling each ad-network cookie as a separate infection is only designed to oversell what it does, and alarm non-technical users into ponying up more money for their over-priced software.
And eventually, their software behaves just like most malware anyway. It nags you every year for you to pay to resubscribe. It continually runs in the background slowing down your computer in everything it tries to do. And it ends up stealing a good portion of screen real estate away from a non-sophisticated user, who usually doesn't know how to remove it from his/her internet browser.
Not to mention that on a mobile device, it will also suck the battery dry.
That makes sense. I would also hope that the system turned itself off when one hits the brakes abruptly.
Sometimes, the only way to avoid an animal/child/object on the road, or a plane/falling object just ahead, is to hit the brakes and veer off quickly (because the brakes may not be enough by themselves, and I would hate to have to rely on turn signals as well in that case).
So the terrorists are broadcasting their messages on twitter.. and they maybe have followers or something?
Not exactly. The account for Al-Shabaab hasn't twitted yet (may be they're using Direct Messages). I hope that Israeli organization is proud of itself. That Twitter account was probably the only lead the CIA had on Al-Shabaab.
And the Twitter account for Hezbollah is private, only has two followers, and seems to be under the name of some Jewish guy. https://twitter.com/#!/Hezbollah
I guess Twitter could always shut down that Hezbollah account on the grounds that impersonating a terrorist organization you're not affiliated with is a direct violation of their terms of services, but I don't see them shutting down that first account, especially if it's being monitored by government officials.
Even for mere drug dealers in the US, phone companies are usually told by the government not to shut down accounts for non-payment if there is an active tap on their line.
I really cannot wait to get my hands on a useful $99 or less tablet that actually doesn't look good, is rugged and doesn't have fancy graphics.
Assuming it even works in the first place.
Personally, I'm like you, I couldn't care less about the look, the icons, or the form factor either, but at the minimum I'd require a super cheap tablet that registers the touches properly.
I've tried cheap under-powered android-derived tablets before, and I can tell you, there is nothing more frustrating as a user than having to touch a screen three or four times instead of touching it only once because the touchscreen doesn't register touch inputs properly. And I do like the goal they have, but my hope is that bare-bones usability is not sacrificed for the goal they have, otherwise everyone (even the schools in India I'm sure) will be sending their tablets back to them demanding their money back.
...non-nerds have neither the time nor desire to make computing a hobby. To them, computers are simply a means to get a job done, and that's the extent of their interest.
That's correct, non-nerds only really care about getting a task done, but that doesn't mean that they don't care about having a locked down device either.
For instance, non-nerds will ask me if they can enable tethering for their laptop from their phone without paying extra, since they were already under the impression that they were already paying a hefty amount for unlimited everything. Some non-nerds will ask me about cheaper brands of ink, since they're paying through their nose for ink every time they're printing family pictures on their cheap Costco-purchased inkjet printer. And those non-nerds may not know exactly the internal workings of those problems they're facing, but even without our help, they do get a sense that they've been lied to, or ripped off in some way, because the device they have failed their expectations.
And please do not underestimate the tenacity of non-nerds at wanting to get something done. Some of those non-nerds will keep on calling their customer service repeatedly, they'll post negative reviews everywhere they can, some of them will harass those of us who are nerds (thinking that we know everything or that we'll do all the research and footwork for them), and eventually through sheer unrelenting tenacity, they'll end up getting what they want (even if it means biting the bullet, swallowing their anger for a little bit, and eventually buying a different more open device from somewhere else).
Caveats aside, this will make it easier for their customers to reap the same advantages of updates that iPhone owners have had for a couple of generations.
I hope not.
If Android tried to match the iOS development cycle in speed, we'd all still be on Android 2.0.1.
Isn't it the user who posted the comment the one who's asking to have it taken down?
Yes and no. A temporary injunction was filed against the woman who originally posted the alleged "defamatory" comment. That's what prompted her request for the removal, but then the court notes in its decision that the injunction got dissolved almost immediately anyway.
Nowhere does it say in the decision from the court that she thought her comments were false, or even defamatory. I'm afraid that part may have come from NewYorkCountryLawyer's editorializing.
I fail to see how respecting the poster's implicit copyright over their statement allows the web site operator to refuse to remove the comment.
Where did you read that? They cite the Communications Act as the reason for their decision. The Communications Act talks about speech or publishing, but it says nothing explicitly about copyright (unless there is an infringement of some kind). Had the site posted a video on youtube with the woman making a Jerry Springer-style accusation about the organization in that video. The reasoning of the court would probably have staid the same.
Also, the terms of use of the site couldn't be more explicitly well laid out.
ROR is a permanent record of disputes, including disputes which have been fully resolved. In order to maintain a complete record, information posted on ROR will not be removed. By posting information on ROR, you understand and agree that the material you post will become part of ROR’s permanent record and will NOT be removed even at your request.
And yet, virtual in-game currency seems to be taking hold, and some people are not just paying $4 for a game, some are paying for those imaginary coins/upgrades again and again for the same freaking game -- spending way more than $4!
No, I also hold the theory that the human mind is on auto-pilot 99% most of the time. And that 99% of the everyday decisions, we actually pre-decided previously. And it's only when we have to break our own status quo, that we actually try to exercise some kind of new (emotional or rational) judgement before we try to change any of our standing habits.
Yes, I see the Google + icon, but that wasn't the one I was talking about.
The Google + icon is black. The Google TV icon is white with a TV in the middle. They're both in there.
But even if they weren't responsible, you'd think they'd take steps to make sure that their store identity wasn't overwhelmed by another company's.
Well that's what happens when you're too cheap to get your own retail store, but then still pretend you have your own store (your own "shop within a shop").
I suspect some journalist wanted to call out that contradiction, but then needed to do his own fibbing about Apple so that his newspaper would even publish the story in the first place.
...the Nook and the Kindle have allowed large amounts of written material on many different subjects to become accessible enough that parents can tutor their children at a price that just about everyone can afford."
I guess this guy thinks that the public library (and inter-library) system, the used book market, or even the internet, was never affordable enough (or convenient enough) for most homeschooling parents.
Calling bullshit on that. It looks like the background decor, not the samsung stand, in a larger store. In one place, in sicily.
Not to mention, there are also three icons for McDonald and three icons for Google TV.
Thankfully, there are not too many fanboys of McDonald/Google TV on here, otherwise we'd be hearing conspiracy theories about how Samsung wants to go into the cheap silicon-based fast food business in Italy using the super popular Google TV logo.
No one grabbed your guns. You can still display your avatar at home, or on the Internet. You just can't do it on the Xbox network, a privately-run network.
The same thing will happen if you go to a night club in Texas. You may have the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, but as soon as you want to enter a privately-run property like a night club, or a titty-bar, you have to drop off your guns at the gun check-in like everybody else, or just choose not to enter the establishment in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the parent's original point. It's obvious that your point is correct, but let's say if you flash the rom on your ECM and your car keeps on working fine, but develops a completely unrelated leaky roof. Your warranty on the roof should still be valid.
Also, this is weird. Netflix and Hulu+ are able to work on rooted Android devices (they may not be able to run on ICS yet, but that's besides the point).
How come Netflix and Hulu+ have more liberal policies than Google?
Solar energy is nuclear energy...
Or you could always use pee to generate your own power. You could stick some electrodes into your bladder, or if you're the squimish type, you could just do it the traditional way and refill your phone with fresh pee every 6 hours.
After puzzling over it a while they realized this value was the number of words on their homepage that month; it was this guy's way of reminding them that a simple interface was working well and contrasted distinctly with the likes of yahoo!
Or may be, there was no reason, and this guy was one of these folks here.
Cool. You seem to know what MAME is? What is it? I clicked on the link, but the site doesn't say.
Notice how they like to mention that they're the number-one ranked in illegal downloads. Personally, whenever I hear someone claim to be in that number-one spot for anything online, I immediately get suspicious.
In the case of Madonna for instance, she flooded p2p with millions of fake tracks, and then included the fake users downloading those fake tracks in the final tally of people pirating her music. This scheme had several purposes. Aside from making it more difficult for illegal downloaders, and making them download the same track multiple times, it magnified the perception of piracy, increased the perception of possible damages she incurred, but also implied in the media that her music was so popular -- that everybody just had to have it.
Basically, she's the poster child for that kind of market manipulation and PR coups, and this type of practice has been happening since at least 2003. That's why I don't trust any ranking of p2p, or any online poll for that matter, unless I can personally verify a sample of those people doing the downloading/voting in the first place.
I seriously doubt that the problem is that there haven't been enough takers. Yes, it sounds a touch megalomaniacal. But my conclusion is that Google has simply just not raised awareness about this product.
As a former user of the service, I'm actually not that surprised.
Out of all the health services I was personally using, the only service that reliably plugged into it was my Walgreens pharmacy. Of course, my doctor could have used it himself, but I didn't even ask. Ever since I've migrated to the US from France, I've given up asking non-French doctors to fill out my medical blue book (my medical blue book contains all the medical records I've had since I was a baby, I do not know if they still use it in France now, but I love having all my medical information summarized and centralized in one thing that I actually have control over).
For me Google Health was just like a big empty spreadsheet that I needed to fill out manually (except for my medication information which could get automatically imported from my pharmacy). I just didn't see any immediate pay off in taking the time of entering that data in it. May be, if I ever have a kid, it might be cool to start keeping something like that from the very first day of his birth (or even sooner, by recording the prenatal care the mother is given), to later give it to him for his information, but for me personally, it just isn't worth it unless my insurance or my doctor's office started participating in it as well (otherwise, I'd just end up duplicating a lot of information manually without a real reason for it otherwise, or just start using something like Excel/Google Docs instead).
I always believed that the day antivirus software becomes a universally accepted requirement the way it is on Windows...
That day occurred when Outlook would run malicious scripts by default found in received email messages, that had access to the entire OS/hard drive, without any needed user intervention.
For Android, I'm not sure that day has arrived yet, the article is derived from the press release of an antivirus company. Of course, it's going to imply that you absolutely need to buy *their* product (instead of using a little bit of street sense).
Now never mind that Google already has the capability of uninstalling malware from Android that was previously downloaded from their Market (or that you can already download a "Kid Mode" launcher to prevent your kids from installing anything, or just press a button to reset your phone to wipe everything and restore it to its factory settings). Does McAfee think it can act much faster than google in identifying and removing malware? Personally, I doubt that. And never mind that an Android user actually has to locate and tick the checkbox for installing apps from unknown sources (which AT&T doesn't let you do anyway), and then has to accept the permissions to install the application in the first place.
It's not like on the iPhone/iPad where you just need to go to a web page with some jpeg image on it and then your iDevice is magically rooted, and then the iPhone user is free to install any type of malware he wants (McAfee or no McAfee). That's one of the reasons that the McAfee anti-virus software on iOS is even more useless on iOS than on Android, since it can't run in the background and it can't even be scheduled to run at different times. On iOS, it couldn't prevent you from going to a malicious site even if it wanted to.
McAfee should know, it's one of them too.
Their free trial virus scanner does the same thing, it's just slightly more subtle about it. I appreciate the fact that it helps clean up cookies, and I hate ad-network cookies as much as the next guy, but labeling each ad-network cookie as a separate infection is only designed to oversell what it does, and alarm non-technical users into ponying up more money for their over-priced software.
And eventually, their software behaves just like most malware anyway. It nags you every year for you to pay to resubscribe. It continually runs in the background slowing down your computer in everything it tries to do. And it ends up stealing a good portion of screen real estate away from a non-sophisticated user, who usually doesn't know how to remove it from his/her internet browser.
Not to mention that on a mobile device, it will also suck the battery dry.
Yes, pretty much.
Add to that an egg timer, and not much traffic, and you could probably take very short naps between each time the timer rings.
That makes sense. I would also hope that the system turned itself off when one hits the brakes abruptly.
Sometimes, the only way to avoid an animal/child/object on the road, or a plane/falling object just ahead, is to hit the brakes and veer off quickly (because the brakes may not be enough by themselves, and I would hate to have to rely on turn signals as well in that case).
So the terrorists are broadcasting their messages on twitter.. and they maybe have followers or something?
Not exactly. The account for Al-Shabaab hasn't twitted yet (may be they're using Direct Messages). I hope that Israeli organization is proud of itself. That Twitter account was probably the only lead the CIA had on Al-Shabaab.
And the Twitter account for Hezbollah is private, only has two followers, and seems to be under the name of some Jewish guy.
https://twitter.com/#!/Hezbollah
I guess Twitter could always shut down that Hezbollah account on the grounds that impersonating a terrorist organization you're not affiliated with is a direct violation of their terms of services, but I don't see them shutting down that first account, especially if it's being monitored by government officials.
Even for mere drug dealers in the US, phone companies are usually told by the government not to shut down accounts for non-payment if there is an active tap on their line.
I really cannot wait to get my hands on a useful $99 or less tablet that actually doesn't look good, is rugged and doesn't have fancy graphics.
Assuming it even works in the first place.
Personally, I'm like you, I couldn't care less about the look, the icons, or the form factor either, but at the minimum I'd require a super cheap tablet that registers the touches properly.
I've tried cheap under-powered android-derived tablets before, and I can tell you, there is nothing more frustrating as a user than having to touch a screen three or four times instead of touching it only once because the touchscreen doesn't register touch inputs properly. And I do like the goal they have, but my hope is that bare-bones usability is not sacrificed for the goal they have, otherwise everyone (even the schools in India I'm sure) will be sending their tablets back to them demanding their money back.
...non-nerds have neither the time nor desire to make computing a hobby. To them, computers are simply a means to get a job done, and that's the extent of their interest.
That's correct, non-nerds only really care about getting a task done, but that doesn't mean that they don't care about having a locked down device either.
For instance, non-nerds will ask me if they can enable tethering for their laptop from their phone without paying extra, since they were already under the impression that they were already paying a hefty amount for unlimited everything. Some non-nerds will ask me about cheaper brands of ink, since they're paying through their nose for ink every time they're printing family pictures on their cheap Costco-purchased inkjet printer. And those non-nerds may not know exactly the internal workings of those problems they're facing, but even without our help, they do get a sense that they've been lied to, or ripped off in some way, because the device they have failed their expectations.
And please do not underestimate the tenacity of non-nerds at wanting to get something done. Some of those non-nerds will keep on calling their customer service repeatedly, they'll post negative reviews everywhere they can, some of them will harass those of us who are nerds (thinking that we know everything or that we'll do all the research and footwork for them), and eventually through sheer unrelenting tenacity, they'll end up getting what they want (even if it means biting the bullet, swallowing their anger for a little bit, and eventually buying a different more open device from somewhere else).
Caveats aside, this will make it easier for their customers to reap the same advantages of updates that iPhone owners have had for a couple of generations.
I hope not.
If Android tried to match the iOS development cycle in speed, we'd all still be on Android 2.0.1.
That's not a good analogy.
I like the beer idea.
It's a great way to screen out all the kids (that are not old enough to carry fake ids yet).
I just hope people don't get too drunk, otherwise you'd just be replacing one problem with another.
Isn't it the user who posted the comment the one who's asking to have it taken down?
Yes and no. A temporary injunction was filed against the woman who originally posted the alleged "defamatory" comment. That's what prompted her request for the removal, but then the court notes in its decision that the injunction got dissolved almost immediately anyway.
Nowhere does it say in the decision from the court that she thought her comments were false, or even defamatory. I'm afraid that part may have come from NewYorkCountryLawyer's editorializing.
I fail to see how respecting the poster's implicit copyright over their statement allows the web site operator to refuse to remove the comment.
Where did you read that? They cite the Communications Act as the reason for their decision. The Communications Act talks about speech or publishing, but it says nothing explicitly about copyright (unless there is an infringement of some kind). Had the site posted a video on youtube with the woman making a Jerry Springer-style accusation about the organization in that video. The reasoning of the court would probably have staid the same.
Also, the terms of use of the site couldn't be more explicitly well laid out.
ROR is a permanent record of disputes, including disputes which have been fully resolved. In order to maintain a complete record, information posted on ROR will not be removed. By posting information on ROR, you understand and agree that the material you post will become part of ROR’s permanent record and will NOT be removed even at your request.
Isn't that what the verification code in the back is for? That one has always changed for me (even if the main number doesn't).
And yet, virtual in-game currency seems to be taking hold, and some people are not just paying $4 for a game, some are paying for those imaginary coins/upgrades again and again for the same freaking game -- spending way more than $4!
No, I also hold the theory that the human mind is on auto-pilot 99% most of the time. And that 99% of the everyday decisions, we actually pre-decided previously. And it's only when we have to break our own status quo, that we actually try to exercise some kind of new (emotional or rational) judgement before we try to change any of our standing habits.
No, I said Google TV, not Google +
Yes, I see the Google + icon, but that wasn't the one I was talking about.
The Google + icon is black. The Google TV icon is white with a TV in the middle. They're both in there.
But even if they weren't responsible, you'd think they'd take steps to make sure that their store identity wasn't overwhelmed by another company's.
Well that's what happens when you're too cheap to get your own retail store, but then still pretend you have your own store (your own "shop within a shop").
I suspect some journalist wanted to call out that contradiction, but then needed to do his own fibbing about Apple so that his newspaper would even publish the story in the first place.
Don't be silly. That's what the TV is for.
...the Nook and the Kindle have allowed large amounts of written material on many different subjects to become accessible enough that parents can tutor their children
at a price that just about everyone can afford."
I guess this guy thinks that the public library (and inter-library) system, the used book market, or even the internet, was never affordable enough (or convenient enough) for most homeschooling parents.
Calling bullshit on that. It looks like the background decor, not the samsung stand, in a larger store. In one place, in sicily.
Not to mention, there are also three icons for McDonald and three icons for Google TV.
Thankfully, there are not too many fanboys of McDonald/Google TV on here, otherwise we'd be hearing conspiracy theories about how Samsung wants to go into the cheap silicon-based fast food business in Italy using the super popular Google TV logo.
No one grabbed your guns. You can still display your avatar at home, or on the Internet. You just can't do it on the Xbox network, a privately-run network.
The same thing will happen if you go to a night club in Texas. You may have the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, but as soon as you want to enter a privately-run property like a night club, or a titty-bar, you have to drop off your guns at the gun check-in like everybody else, or just choose not to enter the establishment in the first place.