In 2007 Verizon blocked text messages from Naral, an abortion rights group claiming they had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages. They reversed position quickly but not before a significant media backlash:
The move by Verizon Wireless to block--and then unblock--text messages from abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America is being cited as a key example of why the principles of "net neutrality" should be codified into law.
The basic issue here is people wanting to make use of a communications channel that is not public and does not belong to them. Matter of fact, it's the same thing with telemarketing, junk faxes and email... it's all spam, all garbage, all a waste of time and money. Whatever particular flavor of garbage you spew forth, you are consuming resources for which someone else is paying in order to get your message out. Theft of service, whatever you want to call it, if I have to pay for it you damn well had better not be sending it to me. Furthermore, that's true even if receiving your oh so bloody important message doesn't cost me anything. You still wasted my time.
Parasites. Vampires. Bloodsucking leeches all of them.
You pay to receive text messages? What the hell is that all about then?
Kind of explains why consumer debt is so high eh?;)
I had the same reaction when I tried to get a US phone and they told me I'd pay for messages received. The worst part was they thought I was the crazy one for not thinking it was normal.
A lot of plans come with unlimited texting. I don't send more than five or six a month, and receive about the same (okay, I don't have kids and I'm over forty) but the plan I'm on gives me unlimited texts. So don't get the idea that you have to pay for every single text message you send or receive. And if you don't want any, you can usually tell your carrier to simply disable them. Although now that I think about it, I had AT&T for a while some years ago, and the bastards kept sending me spam messages for AT&T services which they billed at 25c each, even though my plan included free texting. So every month I would have to call up and have the charges removed. Sprint pulled the same crap with me too, although they were worse... I'd get charges for data transfer when my plan didn't include Internet access, and the phone was a simple voice-only model. They would also bill me for watching videos, something else the phone dldn't support. Sometimes I'd see forty or fifty bucks extra on my bill. Both companies provided good wireless service, but their billing practices were annoying (especially Sprint.)
Where in the hell did you people get the idea that "if it's not a government doing it, it's not censorship." It may not be illegal or constitutionally prohibited censorship, but if anybody stops you from communicating anything anywhere, it is censorship. You can argue whether it is legal, ethical, necessary, etc., but it is still censorship.
Yes, and more to the point, the Constitution is really only concerned about government muzzling its citizens. If the citizens want to muzzle each other, that's a different matter entirely. This is one private corporation having a pissing match with another private corporation, no more and no less.
Nice strategy of denial there. Also try crying and flailing about with your arms next time you hear an argument you don't like.
Well, when someone presents a completely illogical argument that is irrelevant to current circumstances, I generally don't feel the need to say more: the author of said arguments has usually made my case for me.
Are you saying there's not a team of expert thieves being modern-day Robin Hoods? That there's not a CTU protecting the president from outrageously complicated assassination plots? That angels don't get sent down to earth to correct their mistakes? That aliens aren't disguised among us? That a man can't be reborn as a car?
I'm not saying that all, you can't trust what you see on television. I read it all in the National Enquirer.
More properly, I think, the browser is not an applications platform. Some individuals believe that it is, but they are mistaken. So yes, the thin client model does well for certain things, with local applications preferable for others. Why is this such a big deal for people to understand? The Web is not a panacea: moving everything in an organization to a Web interface regardless of the users' actual needs is just stupid.
Some people just want to push the Web onto everything, just because they can. But you know what? Processing power is cheap nowadays. No reason not to use it for doing things other than running a Web browser.
Our past experience indicate the IT staff does more damage to the stability of the system than anything else could
Agreed, with all your points. Over the past couple decades of doing control systems, one of the most common questions I get asked by engineering is "how can we best keep IT off our control network?" Funny... the engineers in charge of these things just seem to intrinsically understand the risks of letting IT staff anywhere near a live process control system. Now, before you IT support people get all testy, I'm not saying that you are, as a group, necessarily incompetent within your legitimate purview. However, as Dirty Harry once said, "A man's got to know his limitations" and it's very disturbing to me how many of you are incapable of recognizing where your involvement is a liability. I've been accused of installing "rogue" systems by IT staff, simply because I recommended that a control system not be placed on a company's regular network. Thing is, a failure on an office network is an inconvenience. A failure on an engineering network can be a disaster. Keep that in mind next time you insist that engineering's systems should be under IT's thumb, and subject to whatever corporate "standards" are in force, regardless of their impact.
its like "my neighbor has a meth lab. i won't try to get my neighbor to get rid of the meth lab. instead, i will simply support my other neighbor getting his own meth lab, so that its fair"
That's about the best analogy I've heard today.
and yet that is some people's reasoning on why nuclear proliferation is ok. its insane
rendering non-fissile as much nuclear material as possible.
How, exactly, would that work? Also, the tracking and the detecting is, I believe, what the IAEA has been doing for decades, and Kim Jong Il still got the bomb.
Yes, and detecting nukes is a joke. Take any of the major shipyards: the Feds admit they can't even begin to inspect more than a tiny fraction of the goods that go through them every single day. We live in a goldfish bowl, and sooner or later the cat is going to knock it over.
the US will pretty much be committed to following up with a strike on Iran. Which then triggers the rest of the Muslim world declaring war on the US.
I also don't think that a lot of people posting here understand that modern thermonuclear weapons are not twenty kiloton toys like Fatman and Littleboy. Well, we do have quite a range of yields available to us. Depending upon how hard we decided to hit them Iran, and its State ideology, could easily cease to exist.
In the old days we used to call this "brinksmanship." The Russians haven't been playing that particular game for some time now, but apparently Iran thinks it can get away with it.
Yeah, the GP pretty much shot his credibility in the foot with the comment. Depleted uranium is used because it's very dense and therefore has more kinetic energy at a given velocity. What cracks me up about that is that, while it is radioactive, it's depleted uranium. Spent fuel, which wasn't even weapons grade to begin with.
The GP must lump anything that uses radioactive materials into the "nuclear weapon" category. I wouldn't be surprised if thinks smoke detectors are nuclear weapons.
According to your reasoning about
A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) and B (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427730/) the USA should not be allowed to have nuclear Weapons.
Get the fuck over it. I could build a zippe type centrifuge cascade with alluminum rotors given a cnc lathe and $20,000.
I see. So, in your learned opinion, the only aspect of nuclear weapons development that counts is the fuel? Are you serious? Really, please do a little Googling on the history of weapons development before you come back here. Russia stole a lot of information from us during the Cold War, and a lot of that was data (math and simulations) on how to maximize yield (among other things), not just how to purify fissionable materials.
There's a lot going on here, a lot of information that can and should remain secret. Furthermore, as an American citizen whose taxes went to pay for that development, I don't particularly see any reason why the likes of Iran should get it for free. Make them pay, like we did.
I believe what the poster was saying (and I agree with) is that as a State the USSR was unwilling to sacrifice its population to win a war against the US.
Yes, unlike some of the other drain-bamaged individuals here, you take my meaning correctly. More to the point, the Soviet leadership was probably willing to sacrifice some percentage of its population, but it most certainly wasn't willing to sacrifice itself. Now, one of the tenets of waging a nuclear war is that you don't take out the other side's leaders, because then there won't be anyone left to say "stop, we give up" and have the authority to make it stick. It's unlikely that we would have specifically targeted Russia's leaders for just that reason, but in all-out nuclear war nobody is exactly safe. Regardless, Russia's government was never willing to risk it once we made it clear that Russia wouldn't survive the attempt.
I wish you folks that think that this it's just so gosh-darned unfair that the United States (and, I might, pretty much every other member of the nuclear club) doesn't want Iran to have nukes would pause just for a moment. Look past your anti-American sentiment, and realize exactly what we are talking about here, what the risks actually are. CdrGuru made a pretty good case that Iran is not to be trusted with the things: maybe no nation can, in the long run, but in the short run some countries are far more dangerous than others.
is more realistic approaches to nuclear nonproliferation. face up to the fact that all countries will inevitably achieve nuclear weapons capability in the near future, and act accordingly with the international community through political and economic incentives to assure all countries are well appraised that, while attractive in the face of gridlock warfare or political strife, the ending outcome of nuclear war is negative for all parties involved. Arms will always proliferate, the question is, how do we proliferate peace.
Put it this way:
A. There are some countries who should not be allowed nuclear weapons because they will probably use them.
B. There are some countries who should not be allowed nuclear weapons because they may lose track of them (thus making those weapons available to nations of type A -or- to certain (ahem!) non-governmental organizations who will probably use them.
The Cold War was a dangerous game (and we're not out of the woods yet: many of those weapons still exist and so do the ideological differences for that matter) but the leaders of both sides weren't willing to die for their ideology. That basic rationality is no longer a given, as these weapons proliferate to less politically stable nations.
This (badly mistaken) idea that it's acceptable for anyone to steal nuclear weapons technology because, well, heck, they'll get it eventually is just wrong. Yes, they might get it eventually, but the odds of that happening are reduced if they aren't forced to make the same investment that we and the Soviets made. And you never know: if it comes down to that, they may decide they have better uses for the money. And if not, if they do get nukes but have to take a few years to figure out how, well, that's a few more years of relative safety for the rest of us.
Alternatively again, I dig a whole for the express purpose of turning it into a swimming pool and charging people for its use. I finish the pool and sell admission to thousands of people but at night, after we're all closed up, hundreds climb over the fence and swim for free.
So put barbed wire on top. If you don't defend what is yours (or can't convince your friendly neighborhood government to defend it for you) then you have to accept that some people will find a way to not pay you. You can, however, still make money, specially if your facility is clean, reasonably-priced, and safe.
Conversely, sometimes the measures you take to defend yourself have consequences. Some legitimate customers may consider your upgraded fence too intimidating, and decide they really don't need your pool. Those people may tell other people about your behavior, causing them to avoid using your pool also. Still others may take it as a challenge, and find away over your fence in spite of your best efforts. You will probably call them "pirates" and "thieves" and "water right infringers". Heck, they may even show other people how to get over that fence and swim for free. In that case, you may still make money, but you'll be taking a net loss because you dissed your customers, and scared potential customers away.
Still, the loss of those customers doesn't bother you much because, dammit, it's your pool and they should respect your authority over that pool. So, you decide to take that barbed wire and electrify it. And, just to make sure they understand your position, you publicly state that your protection is absolute, and that people had better be prepared to pay whatever you ask if they want a swim.
And for a while, everything is just peachy. Profits are up, pool infringement is down. Then some ne'er-do-well figures out how to short out that fence, so people can climb over it. Heck, they already know how to deal with the barbed wire. So now infringement is back up again, only now you've succeeded in turning the defeat of your anti-pool-infringement technology into a challenge, and there are a lot of people out there who maybe don't even know how to swim, but just want to show other folks how to swim for free. Because they can.
The moral of the story is, you are probably not going to make as much as you want, but that doesn't mean you can't make a profit anyway. You just need to place a limit on your greed, and keep your expectations in line with reality.
Regardless, we've just officially created the "pool" analogy.
Working hard doesn't mean you have done anything of value. I can work much harder digging a hole in the ground but if no one wants the hole and there is no need for a hole there, I can't get all pissy and demand to be paid for all of my hard work.
Opposite side of the coin is that if someone comes along and starts using your hole, you'd reasonably expect to get paid for it, just like anyone else workin' the street.
Payment can take many forms, not all of which require any coin of the realm.
In this particular case I can't accept that they are just protecting the integrity of the platform: do you think Google would have done this if location wasn't a Google service? Would Google really have forced every manufacturer to use e.g. Skyhook if they thought Skyhook was really good?
I don't think they are. Android is pretty open... as I mentioned elsewhere, some of their applications are not (Google Nav, for instance. The Market for another.) Those have never been free, since the beginning. What I think Google is protecting is their so-called "Google Experience", that is, certain popular applications that use Google services, rather than Android itself (which anyone can take and build on if they wish... it's a Linux distro for chrissakes) but if you don't license those proprietary apps, it's not a Google-branded device. For manufacturers and carriers for whom that branding is important... well, they have to follow Google's licensing rules. You know, like every other outfit that licenses software.
but google has every right to stop you from using the android name on that device
Not so much the name, but the Google Experience... those specific proprietary applications that Google-branded devices have.
Remember when Steve Kondik (aka Cyanogen) got a C&D from Google over his shipping the Google Experience apps with his Cyanogenmod ROM? They didn't care what he called it, they did care that he was shipping specific bits of non-free code with is ROM. Part of the problem was, as I understand it, that Google's code repository wasn't clear on what parts were proprietary, and what were not (I assume that's since been fixed.) So this isn't about trying to lock up Android per se, it's about reserving control over some particular Android applications. I don't see why that should be a problem: if you want the Google Experience, then you license the applications that provide it. Otherwise, take the open-source Android core, and write your own functionality.
So why didn't Google issue a stop ship on the Samsung Fascinate, the Galaxy S on Verizon that removes all traces of Google search and replaces it with Bing? There is no option on the phone to revert it either, and the phone does include the Market, GMail, etc.
Why should they? There's no particular requirement for consistency across such deals, and Verizon may have sweetened the pot in some other way. We'll probably never know, but any company is free to work out whatever terms it wants with any other company.
Slashdot Mirror
In 2007 Verizon blocked text messages from Naral, an abortion rights group claiming they had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages. They reversed position quickly but not before a significant media backlash:
The move by Verizon Wireless to block--and then unblock--text messages from abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America is being cited as a key example of why the principles of "net neutrality" should be codified into law.
ConsumerAffairs article: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/verizon_abortion.html
The basic issue here is people wanting to make use of a communications channel that is not public and does not belong to them. Matter of fact, it's the same thing with telemarketing, junk faxes and email ... it's all spam, all garbage, all a waste of time and money. Whatever particular flavor of garbage you spew forth, you are consuming resources for which someone else is paying in order to get your message out. Theft of service, whatever you want to call it, if I have to pay for it you damn well had better not be sending it to me. Furthermore, that's true even if receiving your oh so bloody important message doesn't cost me anything. You still wasted my time.
Parasites. Vampires. Bloodsucking leeches all of them.
What?!?!?!?!?
You pay to receive text messages? What the hell is that all about then?
Kind of explains why consumer debt is so high eh? ;)
I had the same reaction when I tried to get a US phone and they told me I'd pay for messages received. The worst part was they thought I was the crazy one for not thinking it was normal.
A lot of plans come with unlimited texting. I don't send more than five or six a month, and receive about the same (okay, I don't have kids and I'm over forty) but the plan I'm on gives me unlimited texts. So don't get the idea that you have to pay for every single text message you send or receive. And if you don't want any, you can usually tell your carrier to simply disable them. Although now that I think about it, I had AT&T for a while some years ago, and the bastards kept sending me spam messages for AT&T services which they billed at 25c each, even though my plan included free texting. So every month I would have to call up and have the charges removed. Sprint pulled the same crap with me too, although they were worse ... I'd get charges for data transfer when my plan didn't include Internet access, and the phone was a simple voice-only model. They would also bill me for watching videos, something else the phone dldn't support. Sometimes I'd see forty or fifty bucks extra on my bill. Both companies provided good wireless service, but their billing practices were annoying (especially Sprint.)
Where in the hell did you people get the idea that "if it's not a government doing it, it's not censorship." It may not be illegal or constitutionally prohibited censorship, but if anybody stops you from communicating anything anywhere, it is censorship. You can argue whether it is legal, ethical, necessary, etc., but it is still censorship.
Yes, and more to the point, the Constitution is really only concerned about government muzzling its citizens. If the citizens want to muzzle each other, that's a different matter entirely. This is one private corporation having a pissing match with another private corporation, no more and no less.
. . . because he who has the deepest pockets and slimiest lawyers win!
No, technically it's who has the fattest pipes.
Nice strategy of denial there. Also try crying and flailing about with your arms next time you hear an argument you don't like.
Well, when someone presents a completely illogical argument that is irrelevant to current circumstances, I generally don't feel the need to say more: the author of said arguments has usually made my case for me.
Hold it ... I found your problem.
Are you saying there's not a team of expert thieves being modern-day Robin Hoods? That there's not a CTU protecting the president from outrageously complicated assassination plots? That angels don't get sent down to earth to correct their mistakes? That aliens aren't disguised among us? That a man can't be reborn as a car?
I'm not saying that all, you can't trust what you see on television. I read it all in the National Enquirer.
The browser is not an operating system.
More properly, I think, the browser is not an applications platform. Some individuals believe that it is, but they are mistaken. So yes, the thin client model does well for certain things, with local applications preferable for others. Why is this such a big deal for people to understand? The Web is not a panacea: moving everything in an organization to a Web interface regardless of the users' actual needs is just stupid.
Some people just want to push the Web onto everything, just because they can. But you know what? Processing power is cheap nowadays. No reason not to use it for doing things other than running a Web browser.
As I've learned from television,
Hold it ... I found your problem.
Our past experience indicate the IT staff does more damage to the stability of the system than anything else could
Agreed, with all your points. Over the past couple decades of doing control systems, one of the most common questions I get asked by engineering is "how can we best keep IT off our control network?" Funny ... the engineers in charge of these things just seem to intrinsically understand the risks of letting IT staff anywhere near a live process control system. Now, before you IT support people get all testy, I'm not saying that you are, as a group, necessarily incompetent within your legitimate purview. However, as Dirty Harry once said, "A man's got to know his limitations" and it's very disturbing to me how many of you are incapable of recognizing where your involvement is a liability. I've been accused of installing "rogue" systems by IT staff, simply because I recommended that a control system not be placed on a company's regular network. Thing is, a failure on an office network is an inconvenience. A failure on an engineering network can be a disaster. Keep that in mind next time you insist that engineering's systems should be under IT's thumb, and subject to whatever corporate "standards" are in force, regardless of their impact.
its like "my neighbor has a meth lab. i won't try to get my neighbor to get rid of the meth lab. instead, i will simply support my other neighbor getting his own meth lab, so that its fair"
That's about the best analogy I've heard today.
and yet that is some people's reasoning on why nuclear proliferation is ok. its insane
Yes. It is. And that's scary.
rendering non-fissile as much nuclear material as possible.
How, exactly, would that work? Also, the tracking and the detecting is, I believe, what the IAEA has been doing for decades, and Kim Jong Il still got the bomb.
Yes, and detecting nukes is a joke. Take any of the major shipyards: the Feds admit they can't even begin to inspect more than a tiny fraction of the goods that go through them every single day. We live in a goldfish bowl, and sooner or later the cat is going to knock it over.
the US will pretty much be committed to following up with a strike on Iran. Which then triggers the rest of the Muslim world declaring war on the US.
I also don't think that a lot of people posting here understand that modern thermonuclear weapons are not twenty kiloton toys like Fatman and Littleboy. Well, we do have quite a range of yields available to us. Depending upon how hard we decided to hit them Iran, and its State ideology, could easily cease to exist.
In the old days we used to call this "brinksmanship." The Russians haven't been playing that particular game for some time now, but apparently Iran thinks it can get away with it.
You just read all that from the back of the Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker box, didn't you?
No. But if you disagree, please feel free to indicate where.
Depleted uranium rounds are not nuclear weapons.
Yeah, the GP pretty much shot his credibility in the foot with the comment. Depleted uranium is used because it's very dense and therefore has more kinetic energy at a given velocity. What cracks me up about that is that, while it is radioactive, it's depleted uranium. Spent fuel, which wasn't even weapons grade to begin with.
The GP must lump anything that uses radioactive materials into the "nuclear weapon" category. I wouldn't be surprised if thinks smoke detectors are nuclear weapons.
Well, duh, the US is the biggest terrorist country on the planet, and most dangerous, and most out of control.
What?
According to your reasoning about A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) and B (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427730/) the USA should not be allowed to have nuclear Weapons.
What?
Get the fuck over it. I could build a zippe type centrifuge cascade with alluminum rotors given a cnc lathe and $20,000.
I see. So, in your learned opinion, the only aspect of nuclear weapons development that counts is the fuel? Are you serious? Really, please do a little Googling on the history of weapons development before you come back here. Russia stole a lot of information from us during the Cold War, and a lot of that was data (math and simulations) on how to maximize yield (among other things), not just how to purify fissionable materials.
There's a lot going on here, a lot of information that can and should remain secret. Furthermore, as an American citizen whose taxes went to pay for that development, I don't particularly see any reason why the likes of Iran should get it for free. Make them pay, like we did.
I believe what the poster was saying (and I agree with) is that as a State the USSR was unwilling to sacrifice its population to win a war against the US.
Yes, unlike some of the other drain-bamaged individuals here, you take my meaning correctly. More to the point, the Soviet leadership was probably willing to sacrifice some percentage of its population, but it most certainly wasn't willing to sacrifice itself. Now, one of the tenets of waging a nuclear war is that you don't take out the other side's leaders, because then there won't be anyone left to say "stop, we give up" and have the authority to make it stick. It's unlikely that we would have specifically targeted Russia's leaders for just that reason, but in all-out nuclear war nobody is exactly safe. Regardless, Russia's government was never willing to risk it once we made it clear that Russia wouldn't survive the attempt.
I wish you folks that think that this it's just so gosh-darned unfair that the United States (and, I might, pretty much every other member of the nuclear club) doesn't want Iran to have nukes would pause just for a moment. Look past your anti-American sentiment, and realize exactly what we are talking about here, what the risks actually are. CdrGuru made a pretty good case that Iran is not to be trusted with the things: maybe no nation can, in the long run, but in the short run some countries are far more dangerous than others.
is more realistic approaches to nuclear nonproliferation. face up to the fact that all countries will inevitably achieve nuclear weapons capability in the near future, and act accordingly with the international community through political and economic incentives to assure all countries are well appraised that, while attractive in the face of gridlock warfare or political strife, the ending outcome of nuclear war is negative for all parties involved. Arms will always proliferate, the question is, how do we proliferate peace.
Put it this way:
A. There are some countries who should not be allowed nuclear weapons because they will probably use them.
B. There are some countries who should not be allowed nuclear weapons because they may lose track of them (thus making those weapons available to nations of type A -or- to certain (ahem!) non-governmental organizations who will probably use them.
The Cold War was a dangerous game (and we're not out of the woods yet: many of those weapons still exist and so do the ideological differences for that matter) but the leaders of both sides weren't willing to die for their ideology. That basic rationality is no longer a given, as these weapons proliferate to less politically stable nations.
This (badly mistaken) idea that it's acceptable for anyone to steal nuclear weapons technology because, well, heck, they'll get it eventually is just wrong. Yes, they might get it eventually, but the odds of that happening are reduced if they aren't forced to make the same investment that we and the Soviets made. And you never know: if it comes down to that, they may decide they have better uses for the money. And if not, if they do get nukes but have to take a few years to figure out how, well, that's a few more years of relative safety for the rest of us.
I dunno... hundreds use it for free? That's a lot of pee.
Which simply compensates for normal evaporative losses, thereby saving the pool operators some money.
Alternatively again, I dig a whole for the express purpose of turning it into a swimming pool and charging people for its use. I finish the pool and sell admission to thousands of people but at night, after we're all closed up, hundreds climb over the fence and swim for free.
So put barbed wire on top. If you don't defend what is yours (or can't convince your friendly neighborhood government to defend it for you) then you have to accept that some people will find a way to not pay you. You can, however, still make money, specially if your facility is clean, reasonably-priced, and safe.
Conversely, sometimes the measures you take to defend yourself have consequences. Some legitimate customers may consider your upgraded fence too intimidating, and decide they really don't need your pool. Those people may tell other people about your behavior, causing them to avoid using your pool also. Still others may take it as a challenge, and find away over your fence in spite of your best efforts. You will probably call them "pirates" and "thieves" and "water right infringers". Heck, they may even show other people how to get over that fence and swim for free. In that case, you may still make money, but you'll be taking a net loss because you dissed your customers, and scared potential customers away.
Still, the loss of those customers doesn't bother you much because, dammit, it's your pool and they should respect your authority over that pool. So, you decide to take that barbed wire and electrify it. And, just to make sure they understand your position, you publicly state that your protection is absolute, and that people had better be prepared to pay whatever you ask if they want a swim.
And for a while, everything is just peachy. Profits are up, pool infringement is down. Then some ne'er-do-well figures out how to short out that fence, so people can climb over it. Heck, they already know how to deal with the barbed wire. So now infringement is back up again, only now you've succeeded in turning the defeat of your anti-pool-infringement technology into a challenge, and there are a lot of people out there who maybe don't even know how to swim, but just want to show other folks how to swim for free. Because they can.
The moral of the story is, you are probably not going to make as much as you want, but that doesn't mean you can't make a profit anyway. You just need to place a limit on your greed, and keep your expectations in line with reality.
Regardless, we've just officially created the "pool" analogy.
Working hard doesn't mean you have done anything of value. I can work much harder digging a hole in the ground but if no one wants the hole and there is no need for a hole there, I can't get all pissy and demand to be paid for all of my hard work.
Opposite side of the coin is that if someone comes along and starts using your hole, you'd reasonably expect to get paid for it, just like anyone else workin' the street.
Payment can take many forms, not all of which require any coin of the realm.
In this particular case I can't accept that they are just protecting the integrity of the platform: do you think Google would have done this if location wasn't a Google service? Would Google really have forced every manufacturer to use e.g. Skyhook if they thought Skyhook was really good?
I don't think they are. Android is pretty open ... as I mentioned elsewhere, some of their applications are not (Google Nav, for instance. The Market for another.) Those have never been free, since the beginning. What I think Google is protecting is their so-called "Google Experience", that is, certain popular applications that use Google services, rather than Android itself (which anyone can take and build on if they wish ... it's a Linux distro for chrissakes) but if you don't license those proprietary apps, it's not a Google-branded device. For manufacturers and carriers for whom that branding is important ... well, they have to follow Google's licensing rules. You know, like every other outfit that licenses software.
but google has every right to stop you from using the android name on that device
Not so much the name, but the Google Experience ... those specific proprietary applications that Google-branded devices have.
Remember when Steve Kondik (aka Cyanogen) got a C&D from Google over his shipping the Google Experience apps with his Cyanogenmod ROM? They didn't care what he called it, they did care that he was shipping specific bits of non-free code with is ROM. Part of the problem was, as I understand it, that Google's code repository wasn't clear on what parts were proprietary, and what were not (I assume that's since been fixed.) So this isn't about trying to lock up Android per se, it's about reserving control over some particular Android applications. I don't see why that should be a problem: if you want the Google Experience, then you license the applications that provide it. Otherwise, take the open-source Android core, and write your own functionality.
So why didn't Google issue a stop ship on the Samsung Fascinate, the Galaxy S on Verizon that removes all traces of Google search and replaces it with Bing? There is no option on the phone to revert it either, and the phone does include the Market, GMail, etc.
Why should they? There's no particular requirement for consistency across such deals, and Verizon may have sweetened the pot in some other way. We'll probably never know, but any company is free to work out whatever terms it wants with any other company.