Just because the updates which have come out already have asked you to update doesn't mean that is a prerequisite. You are implying ("An app, not so much.") that other phones can't update an app. Not true. "Every other phone" allows carriers to to do over the air updates. If they want to do an app, they can, by pushing a full image which includes that app. That Android is more modular, and allows_just_ an app to be pushed should be considered a benefit, as it allows a less risky way of updating things. Whether Android or not, the carrier has control.
Except, since Android is open, one can expect that "ROM" developers will make available images (at least on phones where privilege escalation has been achieved) which don't allow this, assuming there's demand for it. Try blocking updates on "every other phone."
Thank you for appropriately labeling your post. You have indeed set up a strawman argument. The only things Google can remove from your phone are things which Google provided via the Market. You agree to that as a condition of getting stuff from the Market. Don't like it, don't use the Market.
With your strawman, you are arguing that they don't have any right to take things they didn't give you in the first place. You're correct, and Google doesn't claim to have any right to take things you installed by other means. Feel free to use the ADK or a non-Googlealternative. You can decide whether their TsOS are more or less onerous than Googles.
No. You're mistakenly thinking that "right" is an absolute. The counter argument is that for Google to not remove software which is misrepresented, malicious or illegal, but to leave it in place would be wrong. The only stuff they can remove via the TOS agreement is stuff that they provided via the Market in the first place. Don't like it? Don't use the Market. It's not like Goggle is removing downloaded MP3s from your SDCARD.
2.4 From time to time, Google may discover a Product on the Market that violates the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. You agree that in such an instance Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your Device at its sole discretion.
Yes, and you'd think that "itwbennett," the submitter would know that, since he is affiliated with itworld (check his home page), the publisher of the linked articles.
Odd, that although he references a slashdot article from a few days ago, instead of linking to that article, or the article that links to (on CNET), or to the source of the report, or even to the report itself, he links to a rehash on itworld.
...in particular. They're just selling anti-malware software for smartphones. They'll be glad to sell you protection for your RIM, WinMo, or Symbian phone, too. They're also glad to point out the danger you're in with those phones, too - lacking their product.
This is how Opera explains it when asking whether to enable the service:
How does geolocation work? How well does it work?
It depends on the device, and its way of connecting to the Internet.
If the device is a desktop computer, without any wireless connections, the IP address is used to determine the device's location, and the measurement is rather crude.
To determine the location of a laptop or other wireless device, Opera may in addition send the following data from nearby Wi-Fi access points:
MAC address (uniquely identifies the hardware)
signal strength (tells how far away it is)
A database of known Wi-Fi access points, together with measured signal strength, makes it possible to give rather precise location information. The success of this method depends largely on the concentration of known access points.
If the device is connected to a mobile telephone network, location data may include cell IDS of the cell towers closest to you, and their signal strength. If the device is GPS-enabled, the location may be obtained via GPS.
Any or all of the above methods may be used to determine the device's location, if the device has sufficient connectivity. In what follows, we refer to this data as the "location data".
Opera make use of Google's geolocation service. For DSL, they can easily find the location of your local central office, and DSL itself then constrains you to a particular radius. If you're connected to the DSL router via WiFi, there's your final answer. If not, maybe you have WiFi enabled, and your computer is sensing a neighbors, even if not connected.
First, it's obvious that there was prior art for the patent as described, when it was filed in 2008.
Second, even if Planetall used a unique and patentable invention in 1998, it cannot be patented with an application filed in 2008. Here's a descriptive quote from the MIT Technology Licensing Office:
The U.S. patent law system is among the most lenient in the world with regards to prior disclosure of your invention. It allows you to publish your invention or offer it for sale prior to filing a patent application, provided that you file your patent application within one year of the publication or offer for sale. If you wait longer than one year, your patent rights are forfeited. The one-year period is a "grace period." - MIT-TLO
The problem with your argument is, although it makes sense, the US government ignores all of that. How do you think they prosecuted Manuel Noriega? It's not like he was selling drugs on a US street corner.
I wouldn't have seen it anyway. I use Opera, and never go to the Google home page (unless it's to see what the logo-of-the-day is). "g searchterm" in the address bar, and straight to the Google results.
Ah, so an answer (albeit a very rude one!) to the very first phrase of my comment - "Please, someone tell me that no tax dollars are being spent..."
Do you have any proof for your claim that this is being paid for by the Japanese? The article seems to indicate otherwise - "The Hayabusa airborne observation campaign is supported by the In-Space Propulsion Technology Project in the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, Washington." "Supported" sure implies funding, and there's no mention of JAXA funding this.
As a taxpayer, you should be more upset about your government bailing out auto-makers and becoming mired in costly foreign conflicts.
Not really. Automakers at least produce something useful. NASA has developed Velcro, no, integrated circuits, uh, Teflon, no wait, uh, Tang. Yeah, that's it. All that money for Tang, which basically sucks. Orange Kool-Aid tastes better.
And, before someone provides some lame example of something which actually _was_ developed by NASA, it would have happened anyway - economics and the free market ensure that.
Please, someone tell me that no tax dollars are being spent to send 30 people of a sightseeing tour of Australia. From the article:
The team's primary goal during the airborne mission is to study the Hayabusa capsule's re-entry to gain technological insight into the heat shield that designers and engineers can use while developing future exploration vehicles.
Anyone want to count the number of re-entries which the US has had in the 50+ years of spaceflight? This must be the worst rationalization, EVAR! NASA can't even be honest and say that they're sending people and resources on a boondoggle.
Go on, mod me down, but I'm a taxpayer and this isn't what government should be spending my money on.
in my past life, I worked for a company responsible for the stuff used to create/implement "touch-tone hell."
When will organizations get a clue - if people don't want to be called, you're only going to piss them off by calling them, and the results will be counter-productive. If you piss me off by making me spend my valuable time going though some poorly designed menu system, only to run into a dead end/disconnect, you can bet that when I do get in touch with a human, I'm going to make sure they get to spend lots of their paid time handling my call.
Why stop with data? Why not demand the ability to pay for all of your life at once, and get unlimited service. No more incremental housing or food or medical or entertainment costs. Free Ferraris for everyone!
Exactly how are they claiming success? Over the past 6 months (their claimed timeframe), gold (or the very close proxy, GLD), is up a bit vs. the Dow and S&P 500, and down a bit vs. NASDAQ. That's hardly a popped bubble.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because the updates which have come out already have asked you to update doesn't mean that is a prerequisite. You are implying ("An app, not so much.") that other phones can't update an app. Not true. "Every other phone" allows carriers to to do over the air updates. If they want to do an app, they can, by pushing a full image which includes that app. That Android is more modular, and allows_just_ an app to be pushed should be considered a benefit, as it allows a less risky way of updating things. Whether Android or not, the carrier has control.
Except, since Android is open, one can expect that "ROM" developers will make available images (at least on phones where privilege escalation has been achieved) which don't allow this, assuming there's demand for it. Try blocking updates on "every other phone."
"You know, and they KNOW that nobody reads that."
Well, to use your argument, you KNOW that nobody had any use for the app-which-did-nothing which Google removed. So, what's the fuss?
Thank you for appropriately labeling your post. You have indeed set up a strawman argument. The only things Google can remove from your phone are things which Google provided via the Market. You agree to that as a condition of getting stuff from the Market. Don't like it, don't use the Market.
With your strawman, you are arguing that they don't have any right to take things they didn't give you in the first place. You're correct, and Google doesn't claim to have any right to take things you installed by other means. Feel free to use the ADK or a non-Google alternative. You can decide whether their TsOS are more or less onerous than Googles.
No. You're mistakenly thinking that "right" is an absolute. The counter argument is that for Google to not remove software which is misrepresented, malicious or illegal, but to leave it in place would be wrong. The only stuff they can remove via the TOS agreement is stuff that they provided via the Market in the first place. Don't like it? Don't use the Market. It's not like Goggle is removing downloaded MP3s from your SDCARD.
Android Market TOS
Furthermore, having done it, they informed you.
From Google's blog:
Yes, and you'd think that "itwbennett," the submitter would know that, since he is affiliated with itworld (check his home page), the publisher of the linked articles.
Odd, that although he references a slashdot article from a few days ago, instead of linking to that article, or the article that links to (on CNET), or to the source of the report, or even to the report itself, he links to a rehash on itworld.
Tagged as a slashvertisement for self-promotion.
This is the US government meting out punishment. "Permanently barred from misleading their customers" is an unnatural concept to them.
...in particular. They're just selling anti-malware software for smartphones. They'll be glad to sell you protection for your RIM, WinMo, or Symbian phone, too. They're also glad to point out the danger you're in with those phones, too - lacking their product.
Opera make use of Google's geolocation service. For DSL, they can easily find the location of your local central office, and DSL itself then constrains you to a particular radius. If you're connected to the DSL router via WiFi, there's your final answer. If not, maybe you have WiFi enabled, and your computer is sensing a neighbors, even if not connected.
Second, even if Planetall used a unique and patentable invention in 1998, it cannot be patented with an application filed in 2008. Here's a descriptive quote from the MIT Technology Licensing Office:
The problem with your argument is, although it makes sense, the US government ignores all of that. How do you think they prosecuted Manuel Noriega? It's not like he was selling drugs on a US street corner.
just incompetent.
You need water for more than just drinking.
But you don't need desalinated water to flush your shit down the sewer.
So, you're admitting that human error is a failure mechanism (and even giving an example).
That's hardly failsafe.
I wouldn't have seen it anyway. I use Opera, and never go to the Google home page (unless it's to see what the logo-of-the-day is). "g searchterm" in the address bar, and straight to the Google results.
Ah, so an answer (albeit a very rude one!) to the very first phrase of my comment - "Please, someone tell me that no tax dollars are being spent..."
Do you have any proof for your claim that this is being paid for by the Japanese? The article seems to indicate otherwise - "The Hayabusa airborne observation campaign is supported by the In-Space Propulsion Technology Project in the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, Washington." "Supported" sure implies funding, and there's no mention of JAXA funding this.
Are you really an idiot, or just playing on on slashdot?
Anyone want to count the number of re-entries from the far side of the Sun which the US has had in the 50+ years of spaceflight?
...because the Earth's atmosphere extends beyond Sol, so that makes a really significant difference on re-entry.
(is the state of science education in the US really as bad as that comment indicates?)
Not really. Automakers at least produce something useful. NASA has developed Velcro, no, integrated circuits, uh, Teflon, no wait, uh, Tang. Yeah, that's it. All that money for Tang, which basically sucks. Orange Kool-Aid tastes better.
And, before someone provides some lame example of something which actually _was_ developed by NASA, it would have happened anyway - economics and the free market ensure that.
Anyone want to count the number of re-entries which the US has had in the 50+ years of spaceflight? This must be the worst rationalization, EVAR! NASA can't even be honest and say that they're sending people and resources on a boondoggle.
Go on, mod me down, but I'm a taxpayer and this isn't what government should be spending my money on.
That _should_ read: "Microsoft should stop shipping its operating systems with security holes wide open."
Doesn't Jeff Bezos have a patent on that?
in my past life, I worked for a company responsible for the stuff used to create/implement "touch-tone hell."
When will organizations get a clue - if people don't want to be called, you're only going to piss them off by calling them, and the results will be counter-productive. If you piss me off by making me spend my valuable time going though some poorly designed menu system, only to run into a dead end/disconnect, you can bet that when I do get in touch with a human, I'm going to make sure they get to spend lots of their paid time handling my call.
Why stop with data? Why not demand the ability to pay for all of your life at once, and get unlimited service. No more incremental housing or food or medical or entertainment costs. Free Ferraris for everyone!
Exactly how are they claiming success? Over the past 6 months (their claimed timeframe), gold (or the very close proxy, GLD), is up a bit vs. the Dow and S&P 500, and down a bit vs. NASDAQ. That's hardly a popped bubble.