Who wants to BUY a cable box they force you to use? The real issue is that the cable companies want to force you to use THEIR SELECTED equipment. Since there is little or no competition with cable, what consumers need and want is freedom to use the EQUIPMENT of their own choosing. THAT would make a far better lawsuit.
I have a TiVo HD. Let me tell you, it was a nightmare trying to get it to work properly with Cox Cable. You think that CableCard solved the issues? Think again. There are different versions of the card and issues with resetting them and the techs are CLUELESS. But then Cox activated SDV (Shared Digital Video) the week after I FINALLY got everything working. Poof- I could then not access 2/3rds of the HD channels. Cox couldn't tell me WHY I couldn't get the stations, and kept sending out useless techs. Then they tried to charge me for the service calls. After many hours on the phone, I FINALLY got someone who actually knew what they were doing.
They activated SDV without telling any customers or even training their techs what they were doing and instantly made it impossible for anyone not using Cox equipment to get many channels. It completely ruined the whole concept of CableCards. And Cox was not the only cable company doing it, either.
Well, it was my great fortune that after a few weeks of that hell, Cox suddenly stopped using SDV and then everything worked again. I heard through my inside connections that Cox was having problems with some of their own equipment and SDV, so they temporarily stopped using it. It hasn't been a year yet, but rest assured that Cox will start using SDV again, and then every customer with an HDTV + cablecard, or TiVO + cablecard, or any other type of non-Cox equipment will be out in the cold yet again.
If you want to give something to someone, you can't control what they do with it. That is like saying "I want to give this hammer to a friend, but I want to prevent them from loaning it to someone else, or using it to smash computers with."
If you don't trust the person that you give something, then the chain of trust is broken. Everything we do is based on trust. I trust if I give you an emergency key to my house that you won't rob me. I trust that when I accept cash from you to pay for a service that it isn't counterfeit. I trust when you sign a contract with me, you will live up to your duties in the contract. I trust when you babysit my children you won't rape them. You pretty much asked for exactly what the whole point (and failure) of DRM is all about- trying to FORCE *everyone* to trust and comply with your wishes. You can't. Welcome to humanity.
> Are they allowed to completely strip my rights to the software?
Um, they are allowed to ask for anything they want (that is not illegal) in a contract, and you are allowed to either sign it or not. If you are paid by them and write the software on their time and sign a contract saying they own it, you don't HAVE any rights for them to "strip".
You are also allowed to negotiate, although I wouldn't hold my breath...
Of course I am not saying that. There are plenty of "better" drivers on the road than me, and those that get "less" distracted by similar and different things.
But why should EVERYONE be a criminal for using a phone in a car because SOME people can't do it safely?
Again- the PHONE is not the problem. It is the way people are using them that is the problem. People who allow themselves to be distracted by phones to a point it greatly impairs driving are the same people who will allow themselves to be distracted by just about anything and everything else too.... we can't make EVERYTHING illegal!
> Without a law on the books, it would be VERY hard to get an additional penalty. With a law, > those who cause accidents while dialing or yaking can be further punished with ease.
There is no NEED for *additional* penalties. If there is an accident, and you are at fault, it shouldn't MATTER *WHAT* the reason is. Does it really matter if you were on a phone, or trying to eat lunch, or yelling at your kids, or changing radio stations, or just didn't get enough sleep? The results are still the same. It is not like someone using a phone INTENDED to cause an accident.
*EVERYTHING* you do or can do while driving, that is not driving, is a distraction. It doesn't take experimentation to know that.
And yes, I think the current types of anti-DUI legislation SHOULD be done away with, because as the laws are now, they are not measuring performance (or impairment), only some abstract, mostly meaningless blood alcohol level %. I never drink. If I had ONE drink, I would be totally impaired, and yet, I would probably PASS a blood alcohol test. Someone who does drink regularly would be far, far less impaired at a blood level that would fail them. Does that make any sense?
So if measuring blood alcohol is so poor, exactly how does one objectively measure "impairment" by phone usage?
When driving on an interstate in good weather, using a headset, my talking on a phone is barely any distraction at all. However, when driving in bad weather or in city traffic, my using a phone in most situations is distracting to my driving, more so than most other things, which is why I won't use or answer it. The key is that I am aware of my *OWN* limitations.
But for SOME people, using a phone is overly distracting under any circumstances. People are different, conditions are different there is no one golden "rule" that is going to make any sense or be fairly applied to everyone or even most everyone. People need to be trained to NOT distract themselves and pay attention to their attention spans.
You can't legislate stupidity away. After phone use is made illegal in cars- what's next? GPS? Music? Food? Kids? Cold medication? Pets? Enforce laws about the RESULTS of poor behaviours, not the supposed causes. It doesn't matter why someone is weaving, following too closely, drifting, not using turn signals, not checking blind spots, etc... they should be ticketed just the same. Combined with education and public service messages, perhaps not everyone has to suffer for the lowest common denominator.
And it is likely that Android will change the game much, much more (when it finally really takes off). Imagine writing once and being able to run on dozens of different handsets across several networks. It will be far more attractive for developers than a single, proprietary platform like the iPhone.
I remember reading about similar "cases" in the past, although they were not DMCA related. Anyway, the courts threw out the plaintiffs because the items being photographed were not considered "art". Despite what Toyota thinks, a mass-produced automobile is not art. It wasn't created as art. It is not unique. And it wasn't sold as art.
Toyota could only be right if the images they specify were TAKEN BY TOYOTA. And that could be difficult to prove. If they claim ALL the images on the site belong to them and the operators of the site KNOW that some/all/most of the pictures were not taken by Toyota, then I think the whole request is bogus.
Yet another example of abuse of the legal system. If it ever makes it to court, I would hope the site operators counter-sue and win BIG. But I think that is the whole point- such cases rarely make it to court, big businesses just use the DMCA as a weapon to scare smaller entities into complying.
> The key to this cross platform-friendliness: Office Web will run in Firefox and Safari browsers, in addition to IE
Yeah right. We have heard THAT before, haven't we? This is coming from the same company that forced Hotmail users to use the new "Live" version, which complains about Firefox every time you access it and doesn't allow Linux users to even send or reply to messages until they change the vendor ident string!!!! And they claimed THAT was supposed to work. Even yesterday it is still broken, I had to change the ident vendor string using about:config from "Mandriva" to "Firefox" to access it.
I am under the assumption that it would rather difficult to get close enough (contact) to someone and use a special light and scanner/sensors to obtain vein patterns without a person knowing... except if maybe they were asleep. This isn't a photograph, it is a contact scan that requires multiple infrared light sources.
From a security standpoint, even if you did obtain someone's scan, then how exactly would you impersonate a fake vein pattern in your arm to trick a scanner?
I do want to point out that I would not agree with using fingers, however, since a scanner could also obtain fingerprints, which is NOT AT ALL privacy friendly. A better approach would be to read the veins in the back of the hand.
Actually, that is a good point. I temporarily forgot about those. I had championed retina scans in the past as the only privacy-friendly biometric... I guess there are now two:)
This is a privacy ACCEPTABLE form of biometrics. Why? Because it does not severely invade privacy like fingerprints, DNA, odor, and face recognition. All the other forms of biometrics I just listed can be used on you WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION, often if you are not even PRESENT. You can't shed or leave vein patterns wherever you go. You veins can't a photographed or video taped from a distance. You can't gather info other than ID with vein patterns.
Finally, a reasonable and secure biometric that can only be used with your permission, while you are present.
ID'ing people can still be abused- there are times when it is still nobody's business who you are, but in those times where it *is* necessary, this is an acceptable method.
> "..addition, but the highest priority is a CIO. What do you think?"
I think it should be a CIO. I also think that CIO should be ready and willing to start rolling out Open Source software in the government everywhere possible to save our tax money and foster innovation. Why do we continue to shell out billions of dollars for proprietary software when there are free alternatives?
The CIO should also be involved (in some capacity) in IT competition, anti-monopoly issues, since it is apparent the Department of Justice doesn't know what the hell it has been doing over the last 20 years.
1) MS-Windows only 2) Overpriced monthly service 3) Hardware hard-wired for only a single carrier
How wonderful, I can hardly wait.
Why don't we do this with cars next- "Get this wonderful car for only $8,000; just sign this $800 per month, 3 year contract for Exxon gas- and oh, by the way, it will only run on Exxon gas, and you are only allowed 20 gallons per month".
Actually, it is just the anti-oxidant properties of grapes. You would do far better to just drink grape juice, take grape seed extract (which is REALLY high in anti-oxidants), or eat grapes. There is nothing special or better about wine, it will actually have the least amount of anti-oxidants in it.
There is a big deal of difference between using the G1 and using a Blackberry, especially if you use Google for all your searches while on other computers. It has to do with how much information is gathered and stored by a single company. Most Blackberry Email is handled only through your phone provider or your corporate Email system, not Google. Neither is instant messaging nor location information, photos, call log, contacts, etc, accessible by Google.
I am not picking on Google, per se, ANY single company that has access to huge amounts of information about you, is a dangerous situation. It is exactly why I don't use Gmail. My Email is handled by one company, searches by another, IM by another, and phone service by yet another. Unless they get together and share information, no one company holds all the data. Is Google less "evil" than XYZ? Who knows. I just know that the danger goes up exponentially with the amount of data. A single data loss event, a single probe by authorities, a single invader breaking your login, a single turn-around of what a company does... it can potentially do a LOT more damage with a single point of data storage.
As far as privacy, in general, it is never about if you have something to hide:
* If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me * Other people define what is "right" or "wrong" and that definition changes all the time * Someone else might do something wrong with my information * Pieces of information, taken out of context, can lead people to wrong conclusions * Scanning information, you can always FIND something that might be wrong or be abused * You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong * You can't possibly know what way some information might be used against you at the time it is collected * Computers don't "forget" * The only "safe" information, is the information not collected or offered
As Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Works the same as "Those who would give up privacy for a little convenience deserve neither privacy nor convenience". In this context, it is EXTREMELY convenient having Google offer all those services on one device...
This kill switch thing is just a distraction from the REAL issue with Android. As has been pointed out numerous times, the kill switch is only for apps from the marketplace, so it is not a real issue.
Android is FANTASTIC in so many ways. However, the one issue that we should be discussing and worrying about the most is *PRIVACY*. The idea of Google having access to all this information is truly frightening:
1) All your web searches, from everywhere (home/work/mobile) 2) All your Email 3) All your instant messages 4) All your web browsing on the phone 5) All your contacts 6) Possibly your phone records? (who you call, who calls you, how long, where...) 7) Your calendar 8) Where your are physically located at all times 9) Possibly your account information (credit card? address? home phone? financial score? ssn?) 10) What apps you install and/or use on the phone
Remember- with the T-Mobile G1, you can't even start USING the phone without a Google Gmail account! I am watching closely over the next few months to see if people will come up with options to protect their privacy and "unchain" Android from total Google oversight. (Google claiming to protect privacy in some cute form letter doesn't cut it for me).
It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to start seeing the major potential for abuse of having access to so much sensitive information, especially from a company that is *so very good* at accumulating, cross-matching, indexing, and using vast quantities of information. Even if Android is open-sourced, that doesn't mean the IMPLEMENTATION of it by the carrier will be, nor will ALL the other "parts" be, even if the base OS/JVM is!
Exactly how chained will Android be to Google? Exactly what information will a carrier share with Google? Exactly what can you do with an Android phone that Google won't know?
>you have to get your DVR from the cable company of you want the full feature set
That is not completely true. TiVo HD supports cable cards and can tune encrypted HD cable, as well as analog and digital OTA. For the moment, it can't deal with SDV, though.
I tried several versions of the 10 beta under Linux FF 2 and FF 3. I had similar experiences- they fixed the transparency, video was MUCH better too. But it would crash Firefox often, AND even simple Flash elements threw my CPU to 100% usage (and this ain't no slow processor). I had to revert to Flash 9.:(
>their actual closed source not so well performing plugin is the first reason why people don't think flash is great for anything other than attracting teenager users.
Actually, I disagree. The first reason MOST people don't think flash is great is because the way most sites use it is VERY ANNOYING. I don't know about you, but I find sites with animation EXTREMELY distracting. Followed by annoying is the second reason- bandwidth; Flash can make what would have been a 1K page 100 to 1000 times larger. THEN comes the fact that it slows down rendering of the page and loads up the CPU. And finally, the closed-source nature of the code.
Of course, if the alternative is MS Silverlight, I would take Flash in a heartbeat.
At this point, Adobe's BEST response would be to completely open source the plugin. Let the community port it to everything, fix performance problems, and add some controls (like limiting what it can do, limiting animation refresh, limiting it from causing animation unless the cursor is pointed at it, limiting cookies, etc).
The summary is right- the screen on the sample image of the computer is most definitely Linux. In fact, it is the same Linux that is used on the EEE's. Why would they load Linux on the machine take marketing images of it, then have a press release saying it will use MS-Windows? Perhaps there will be more than one model/offering?
And why would anyone get excited about a low-powered computer with a 15" monitor that is $750??? That hardly seems like a very interesting price point, even for a touchscreen.
If you load Mandriva 2009.0, it is *already* included. (Although technically it is the final RC with patches. Sometimes they do that... a tiny bit risky, but better than releasing and then a few days later... wham).
I hear you. I don't WANT to block ads on sites I enjoy, like Slashdot, but they pretty much force me to.
I CAN'T STAND any type of animation or movement on the screen while I am trying to read. If they just used static, non-changing, non-animated ad's, it would be no problem.
You know what? Most people that HATE ads, hate them primarily for the same reason- the animation. They can be annoying in many other ways, too (wasted bandwidth, too large, intrusive, etc), but the animation is probably the #1 reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Who wants to BUY a cable box they force you to use? The real issue is that the cable companies want to force you to use THEIR SELECTED equipment. Since there is little or no competition with cable, what consumers need and want is freedom to use the EQUIPMENT of their own choosing. THAT would make a far better lawsuit.
I have a TiVo HD. Let me tell you, it was a nightmare trying to get it to work properly with Cox Cable. You think that CableCard solved the issues? Think again. There are different versions of the card and issues with resetting them and the techs are CLUELESS. But then Cox activated SDV (Shared Digital Video) the week after I FINALLY got everything working. Poof- I could then not access 2/3rds of the HD channels. Cox couldn't tell me WHY I couldn't get the stations, and kept sending out useless techs. Then they tried to charge me for the service calls. After many hours on the phone, I FINALLY got someone who actually knew what they were doing.
They activated SDV without telling any customers or even training their techs what they were doing and instantly made it impossible for anyone not using Cox equipment to get many channels. It completely ruined the whole concept of CableCards. And Cox was not the only cable company doing it, either.
Well, it was my great fortune that after a few weeks of that hell, Cox suddenly stopped using SDV and then everything worked again. I heard through my inside connections that Cox was having problems with some of their own equipment and SDV, so they temporarily stopped using it. It hasn't been a year yet, but rest assured that Cox will start using SDV again, and then every customer with an HDTV + cablecard, or TiVO + cablecard, or any other type of non-Cox equipment will be out in the cold yet again.
That is the simple answer.
If you want to give something to someone, you can't control what they do with it. That is like saying "I want to give this hammer to a friend, but I want to prevent them from loaning it to someone else, or using it to smash computers with."
If you don't trust the person that you give something, then the chain of trust is broken. Everything we do is based on trust. I trust if I give you an emergency key to my house that you won't rob me. I trust that when I accept cash from you to pay for a service that it isn't counterfeit. I trust when you sign a contract with me, you will live up to your duties in the contract. I trust when you babysit my children you won't rape them. You pretty much asked for exactly what the whole point (and failure) of DRM is all about- trying to FORCE *everyone* to trust and comply with your wishes. You can't. Welcome to humanity.
> Are they allowed to completely strip my rights to the software?
Um, they are allowed to ask for anything they want (that is not illegal) in a contract, and you are allowed to either sign it or not. If you are paid by them and write the software on their time and sign a contract saying they own it, you don't HAVE any rights for them to "strip".
You are also allowed to negotiate, although I wouldn't hold my breath...
Of course I am not saying that. There are plenty of "better" drivers on the road than me, and those that get "less" distracted by similar and different things.
But why should EVERYONE be a criminal for using a phone in a car because SOME people can't do it safely?
Again- the PHONE is not the problem. It is the way people are using them that is the problem. People who allow themselves to be distracted by phones to a point it greatly impairs driving are the same people who will allow themselves to be distracted by just about anything and everything else too.... we can't make EVERYTHING illegal!
> Without a law on the books, it would be VERY hard to get an additional penalty. With a law,
> those who cause accidents while dialing or yaking can be further punished with ease.
There is no NEED for *additional* penalties. If there is an accident, and you are at fault, it shouldn't MATTER *WHAT* the reason is. Does it really matter if you were on a phone, or trying to eat lunch, or yelling at your kids, or changing radio stations, or just didn't get enough sleep? The results are still the same. It is not like someone using a phone INTENDED to cause an accident.
Perhaps the penalties are just too low, period.
*EVERYTHING* you do or can do while driving, that is not driving, is a distraction. It doesn't take experimentation to know that.
And yes, I think the current types of anti-DUI legislation SHOULD be done away with, because as the laws are now, they are not measuring performance (or impairment), only some abstract, mostly meaningless blood alcohol level %. I never drink. If I had ONE drink, I would be totally impaired, and yet, I would probably PASS a blood alcohol test. Someone who does drink regularly would be far, far less impaired at a blood level that would fail them. Does that make any sense?
So if measuring blood alcohol is so poor, exactly how does one objectively measure "impairment" by phone usage?
When driving on an interstate in good weather, using a headset, my talking on a phone is barely any distraction at all. However, when driving in bad weather or in city traffic, my using a phone in most situations is distracting to my driving, more so than most other things, which is why I won't use or answer it. The key is that I am aware of my *OWN* limitations.
But for SOME people, using a phone is overly distracting under any circumstances. People are different, conditions are different there is no one golden "rule" that is going to make any sense or be fairly applied to everyone or even most everyone. People need to be trained to NOT distract themselves and pay attention to their attention spans.
You can't legislate stupidity away. After phone use is made illegal in cars- what's next? GPS? Music? Food? Kids? Cold medication? Pets? Enforce laws about the RESULTS of poor behaviours, not the supposed causes. It doesn't matter why someone is weaving, following too closely, drifting, not using turn signals, not checking blind spots, etc... they should be ticketed just the same. Combined with education and public service messages, perhaps not everyone has to suffer for the lowest common denominator.
>The iPhone totally changed the game.
And it is likely that Android will change the game much, much more (when it finally really takes off). Imagine writing once and being able to run on dozens of different handsets across several networks. It will be far more attractive for developers than a single, proprietary platform like the iPhone.
I remember reading about similar "cases" in the past, although they were not DMCA related. Anyway, the courts threw out the plaintiffs because the items being photographed were not considered "art". Despite what Toyota thinks, a mass-produced automobile is not art. It wasn't created as art. It is not unique. And it wasn't sold as art.
Toyota could only be right if the images they specify were TAKEN BY TOYOTA. And that could be difficult to prove. If they claim ALL the images on the site belong to them and the operators of the site KNOW that some/all/most of the pictures were not taken by Toyota, then I think the whole request is bogus.
Yet another example of abuse of the legal system. If it ever makes it to court, I would hope the site operators counter-sue and win BIG. But I think that is the whole point- such cases rarely make it to court, big businesses just use the DMCA as a weapon to scare smaller entities into complying.
> The key to this cross platform-friendliness: Office Web will run in Firefox and Safari browsers, in addition to IE
Yeah right. We have heard THAT before, haven't we? This is coming from the same company that forced Hotmail users to use the new "Live" version, which complains about Firefox every time you access it and doesn't allow Linux users to even send or reply to messages until they change the vendor ident string!!!! And they claimed THAT was supposed to work. Even yesterday it is still broken, I had to change the ident vendor string using about:config from "Mandriva" to "Firefox" to access it.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/21/1838229&from=rss
I feel "isatrap" coming... Why would ANYONE want to run MS-Office online??? *ESPECIALLY* people running Linux or MacOS?
I am under the assumption that it would rather difficult to get close enough (contact) to someone and use a special light and scanner/sensors to obtain vein patterns without a person knowing... except if maybe they were asleep. This isn't a photograph, it is a contact scan that requires multiple infrared light sources.
From a security standpoint, even if you did obtain someone's scan, then how exactly would you impersonate a fake vein pattern in your arm to trick a scanner?
I do want to point out that I would not agree with using fingers, however, since a scanner could also obtain fingerprints, which is NOT AT ALL privacy friendly. A better approach would be to read the veins in the back of the hand.
Actually, that is a good point. I temporarily forgot about those. I had championed retina scans in the past as the only privacy-friendly biometric... I guess there are now two :)
This is a privacy ACCEPTABLE form of biometrics. Why? Because it does not severely invade privacy like fingerprints, DNA, odor, and face recognition. All the other forms of biometrics I just listed can be used on you WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION, often if you are not even PRESENT. You can't shed or leave vein patterns wherever you go. You veins can't a photographed or video taped from a distance. You can't gather info other than ID with vein patterns.
Finally, a reasonable and secure biometric that can only be used with your permission, while you are present.
ID'ing people can still be abused- there are times when it is still nobody's business who you are, but in those times where it *is* necessary, this is an acceptable method.
> "..addition, but the highest priority is a CIO. What do you think?"
I think it should be a CIO. I also think that CIO should be ready and willing to start rolling out Open Source software in the government everywhere possible to save our tax money and foster innovation. Why do we continue to shell out billions of dollars for proprietary software when there are free alternatives?
The CIO should also be involved (in some capacity) in IT competition, anti-monopoly issues, since it is apparent the Department of Justice doesn't know what the hell it has been doing over the last 20 years.
1) MS-Windows only
2) Overpriced monthly service
3) Hardware hard-wired for only a single carrier
How wonderful, I can hardly wait.
Why don't we do this with cars next- "Get this wonderful car for only $8,000; just sign this $800 per month, 3 year contract for Exxon gas- and oh, by the way, it will only run on Exxon gas, and you are only allowed 20 gallons per month".
Actually, it is just the anti-oxidant properties of grapes. You would do far better to just drink grape juice, take grape seed extract (which is REALLY high in anti-oxidants), or eat grapes. There is nothing special or better about wine, it will actually have the least amount of anti-oxidants in it.
There is a big deal of difference between using the G1 and using a Blackberry, especially if you use Google for all your searches while on other computers. It has to do with how much information is gathered and stored by a single company. Most Blackberry Email is handled only through your phone provider or your corporate Email system, not Google. Neither is instant messaging nor location information, photos, call log, contacts, etc, accessible by Google.
I am not picking on Google, per se, ANY single company that has access to huge amounts of information about you, is a dangerous situation. It is exactly why I don't use Gmail. My Email is handled by one company, searches by another, IM by another, and phone service by yet another. Unless they get together and share information, no one company holds all the data. Is Google less "evil" than XYZ? Who knows. I just know that the danger goes up exponentially with the amount of data. A single data loss event, a single probe by authorities, a single invader breaking your login, a single turn-around of what a company does... it can potentially do a LOT more damage with a single point of data storage.
As far as privacy, in general, it is never about if you have something to hide:
* If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me
* Other people define what is "right" or "wrong" and that definition changes all the time
* Someone else might do something wrong with my information
* Pieces of information, taken out of context, can lead people to wrong conclusions
* Scanning information, you can always FIND something that might be wrong or be abused
* You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong
* You can't possibly know what way some information might be used against you at the time it is collected
* Computers don't "forget"
* The only "safe" information, is the information not collected or offered
As Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Works the same as "Those who would give up privacy for a little convenience deserve neither privacy nor convenience". In this context, it is EXTREMELY convenient having Google offer all those services on one device...
This kill switch thing is just a distraction from the REAL issue with Android. As has been pointed out numerous times, the kill switch is only for apps from the marketplace, so it is not a real issue.
Android is FANTASTIC in so many ways. However, the one issue that we should be discussing and worrying about the most is *PRIVACY*. The idea of Google having access to all this information is truly frightening:
1) All your web searches, from everywhere (home/work/mobile)
2) All your Email
3) All your instant messages
4) All your web browsing on the phone
5) All your contacts
6) Possibly your phone records? (who you call, who calls you, how long, where...)
7) Your calendar
8) Where your are physically located at all times
9) Possibly your account information (credit card? address? home phone? financial score? ssn?)
10) What apps you install and/or use on the phone
Remember- with the T-Mobile G1, you can't even start USING the phone without a Google Gmail account! I am watching closely over the next few months to see if people will come up with options to protect their privacy and "unchain" Android from total Google oversight. (Google claiming to protect privacy in some cute form letter doesn't cut it for me).
It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to start seeing the major potential for abuse of having access to so much sensitive information, especially from a company that is *so very good* at accumulating, cross-matching, indexing, and using vast quantities of information. Even if Android is open-sourced, that doesn't mean the IMPLEMENTATION of it by the carrier will be, nor will ALL the other "parts" be, even if the base OS/JVM is!
Exactly how chained will Android be to Google? Exactly what information will a carrier share with Google? Exactly what can you do with an Android phone that Google won't know?
>you have to get your DVR from the cable company of you want the full feature set
That is not completely true. TiVo HD supports cable cards and can tune encrypted HD cable, as well as analog and digital OTA. For the moment, it can't deal with SDV, though.
I second that...
I tried several versions of the 10 beta under Linux FF 2 and FF 3. I had similar experiences- they fixed the transparency, video was MUCH better too. But it would crash Firefox often, AND even simple Flash elements threw my CPU to 100% usage (and this ain't no slow processor). I had to revert to Flash 9. :(
>their actual closed source not so well performing plugin is the first reason why people don't think flash is great for anything other than attracting teenager users.
Actually, I disagree. The first reason MOST people don't think flash is great is because the way most sites use it is VERY ANNOYING. I don't know about you, but I find sites with animation EXTREMELY distracting. Followed by annoying is the second reason- bandwidth; Flash can make what would have been a 1K page 100 to 1000 times larger. THEN comes the fact that it slows down rendering of the page and loads up the CPU. And finally, the closed-source nature of the code.
Of course, if the alternative is MS Silverlight, I would take Flash in a heartbeat.
At this point, Adobe's BEST response would be to completely open source the plugin. Let the community port it to everything, fix performance problems, and add some controls (like limiting what it can do, limiting animation refresh, limiting it from causing animation unless the cursor is pointed at it, limiting cookies, etc).
The summary is right- the screen on the sample image of the computer is most definitely Linux. In fact, it is the same Linux that is used on the EEE's. Why would they load Linux on the machine take marketing images of it, then have a press release saying it will use MS-Windows? Perhaps there will be more than one model/offering?
And why would anyone get excited about a low-powered computer with a 15" monitor that is $750??? That hardly seems like a very interesting price point, even for a touchscreen.
If you load Mandriva 2009.0, it is *already* included. (Although technically it is the final RC with patches. Sometimes they do that... a tiny bit risky, but better than releasing and then a few days later... wham).
You could do that before. It was called "window->new window". Granted, it wasn't quite the same, but I used the feature all the time with no problems.
I hear you. I don't WANT to block ads on sites I enjoy, like Slashdot, but they pretty much force me to.
I CAN'T STAND any type of animation or movement on the screen while I am trying to read. If they just used static, non-changing, non-animated ad's, it would be no problem.
You know what? Most people that HATE ads, hate them primarily for the same reason- the animation. They can be annoying in many other ways, too (wasted bandwidth, too large, intrusive, etc), but the animation is probably the #1 reason.