I think that Google's point with the Nexus Q is hinted at by several things:
The miniUSB port which, at I/O, they made a point of noting provides "hackability".
The fact that they highlighted it and handed them out to developers at their annual developer conference.
The fact that every third word or so in their discussion of the product is "social", and that the existing functions highlight concurrent interaction with multiple users via mobile devices
That they've said the current set of functions is "just the beginning".
Connectivity -- no optical output, only HDMI?That may work for people who use their TV as an HDMI switcher and leave the stereo on a fixed input, but it's nice having both for parallel output.
It's so nice to have both, that Google decided to put a TOSLINK digital audio output on the Nexus Q alongside the HDMI. I don't know where you got the idea that it had only HDMI and no digital output.
I have to wonder if there is another motive to bringing manufacturing back on shore.. It's easy for a judge to decide to block a few shipments of phones from china because of a patent dispute. It's going to be a tougher decision to lay down a patent ruling that may shut down a factory putting US workers on unemployment.
The thing to understand about patent law in the US is that there are effectively two separate systems of patent enforcement -- there are regular infringement cases that go through the federal district courts, and there are actions to block imports that go through the International Trade Commission.
These systems are governed by effectively different law, which makes defenses that would be applicable in regular federal court unavailable in ITC proceedings. It is thus often possible to use the ITC process to block import of products (at least temporarily) when it would not be possible to win an infringement case in the regular courts.
Onshoring is complete protection against the use of the ITC process, which has been an important weapon in the ongoing patent wars.
I don't think its the main reason Google did it with the Nexus Q -- the ability to shorten cycle time between design, engineering, and manufacturing that they've cited is a compelling reason that fits with what has been well-documented about Google's general approach to products -- but given the patent wars raging between Apple, Microsoft, Google, and -- for the latter two -- affiliated hardware manufacturers, its a valuable benefit.
And we've been in a recession pretty much every day since
Actually, the 2001 recession started before 9/11 and ended shortly thereafter (March-November 2001), it wasn't caused by 9/11.
The next recession (the longest since the Great Depression) started 6 years later (Dec 2007-Jun 2009.)
The perception of a continuous recession is understandable, given the fact that the post-2001 expansion, for a number of reason (including changes in tax policy in 2001 -- which also occurred before 9/11) saw the rewards of the expansion focussed unusually narrowly, such that (IIRC) the bottom three quintiles saw real income declines despite aggregate economic expansion, the next quintile was essentially flat, and even most of the top quintile saw fairly weak income growth, with only something like the top 5% seeing significant growth.
But none of that was a result of the 9/11 attacks, it was all stuff we did to ourselves.
Does it, or does it not state that programs that "have the purpose of challenging the studentâ(TM)s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority"?
It claims that Outcome Based Education has that goal (which is a flat-out false statement) and it claims that the other things it opposes (which are not all programs, particularly "teaching critical thinking skills" is not a program, though one might adopt a program that does that) are relabellings of Outcomes Based Education.
if you don't you will have to be specific on how challenging fixed beliefs is not essential to critical thinking.
Uh, no. Actually, what I will do is say that while the assocation with Outcomes Based Education is a flat-out lie, that modify students behavior when confronted with claims, challenging the idea of fixed beliefs, and challenging the unquestioning acceptance of any authority (including parental) within the domain of evaluating claims is exactly the core of critical thinking skills.
Which is exactly why the claim that they aren't really saying they are opposing actual teaching of critical thinking skills because of the language later in the sentence is false -- their claimed basis for opposing critical thinking skills and other things is an accurate (if worded in the most hostile manner possible) description of central purposes of actually teaching critical thinking skills.
They don't want students to have their behavior changed so that they question claims and critically evaluate them rather than accepting or rejecting presented claims on the basis of pre-existing fixed beliefs and authority.
That's what they are being challenged for. And that's what they flat-out say.
You've eliminated an awful lot of the actual sentence that you are quoting without any indication that you have done so.
The rest of the sentence is their justification for opposing the things they oppose, not the list of the things they oppose.
The rest of that sentence contains "which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
Interestingly, you omitted a lot of the rest of the sentence without any indication. Which is kind of hypocritical, given your comment above. Particularly, the part where they claim that things in the list that they oppose are secretly relabellings of Outcome Based Education. The part you quote above actually is their description of what "Outcomes Based Education" supposedly is
Interestingly, that description its more true of what actually teaching critical thinking skills is about (its bizarrely narrow subset of what critical thinking is about, and deliberately phrased in loaded language) than it is of Outcomes Based Education -- OBE has nothing to do with behavior modification, unless you are talking about behavior of those evaluating education systems and students, whereas teaching critical thinking skills does, in fact, focus on modifying the behavior students exhibit when exposed to information, and does in fact have the purpose of challenging "fixed beliefs" and undermining irrational bases for the acceptance of claims, including authority (including implicitly, though its not a particular focus, parental authority it is a fallacious basis for accepting a fact claim.)
If a Republican says "I oppose giving children balanced lunches that have mold growing on them", you'd claim that Republicans oppose giving children any kind of balanced lunch.
A better analogy would be if someone (Republican or not) said "I oppose giving students balanced school lunches, which are simply a relabelling of the Zagat Guide Ratings, which has the purpose undermining malnutrition." (Its not quite a perfect analogy, because I can't really think of something that does the trick that the Texas Republican platform does of picking out what happens to be an accurate subset of the purpose of critical thinking skills, but using loaded language and a highly selective presentation to make it appear scary.)
The liberals did take a good page out of 1984 by learning how to warp and manipulate language to fit their own agenda. For example, relabel the same old provably ineffective (or intentionally worse than ineffective) teaching techniques as "logic" or "critical thinking".
OBE isn't a teaching technique, its a system for evaluating educational systems and students within them (obviously, how you assess effectiveness will, in an ideal world, inform what approaches you take down the line, but OBE is not in itself a teaching technique.)
Critical thinking skills also aren't a teaching technique, they are a subject matter that is taught. They can be taught within a system that uses traditional input-based methods of system evaluation and traditional relative-performance based evaluations students, or within a system that uses objective outcomes-based measures for both systems and students, and by any of a variety of teaching techniques independently of the system of evaluation.
The only relation between the two is that OBE is an application of critical thinking skills to education, rather than equivalent to teaching critical thinking skills.
(OBE, incidentally, isn't particularly a liberal thing; its more of a "run education like an efficient business" thing. Ideologues on the left and right both often oppose it, because it threatens to reveal that practices driven by ideology that are sold as effective actually, objectively, are ineffective.)
It sounds like "Outcome-Based Education" is that you aren't graded by how many hours you spend learning or working, but by the output you can produce.
That much is true.
So they're saying you could use this to brainwash students based on the teacher's political agenda?
Well, you could, if the measurable objective standard you set was ability to recite accurately a particular set of propaganda points. But you could do that with traditional education measured by inputs (time, study materials presented) just as well in OBE, you'd just set the material inputs to be, say, Mao's Little Red Book or the Texas Republican Party 2012 platform.
Both OBE and the approaches it is defined in contrast to are about the mechanisms by which you assess systems of education (and students within them), not what the content is or the goals are. The content and goals come from the outside and, in OBE, would dictate what outcome measures you use.
What they're opposing are a specific series of programs that they claim don't teach real critical thinking.
"Critical thinking skills" are not a program, they are subject area of education. They falsely claim that that subject area of education is (and a number of other things, one or more of which may be a program, are) a relabelling of Outcome Based Education (which is a content-neutral approach to managing education.)
They claim further that they oppose all those supposed relabellings of Outcome Based Education becaue of those approaches "challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority", none of which have any relationship to Outcome Based Education (which is about setting meaningful, objective, consistent outcome measures, and measuring student performance and progress against them, not about what the areas are in which those goals are to be set) but both of which are valid characterizations of actual critical thinking skills, which do deliberately challenge the very idea of "fixed beliefs" and the unquestioning acceptance of any authority.
Sure, you can argue the merits of OBE and such, but recent experience is that Texas's education system has been very successful compared to other states, when you normalize for social background.
Even if true -- and, on that point, citation needed -- how is this relevant to either the merits of actual OBE, or the Texas Republican party's opposition to "critical thinking skills" that is justified by the claim that "criticial thinking skills" are simply a relabelling of OBE?
Please remember that the 2012 Texas Republican Platform isn't the same thing as the actual practices of the Texas State Government (or local education agencies within Texas) that have produced the "recent experience" of Texas' actual educational outcomes.
Texas has a hell of a lot more poor minorities than Vermont or Wisconsin, and the real measure of a public school system is how the poor kids do, not the rich white kids.
You seem to be dangerously close to endorsing the idea that education should be assessed by objective measures of how students perform, rather than by what material is presented. Which would be ironic, when you seem also be trying to attack the idea of OBE.
If you actually look at the platform, the Texas Republicans' opposition is to the Outcome Based Education philosophy.
If one were to actually read the platform, one would note that the Texas Republicans -- and this is a direct quote -- "oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs".
They claim -- as justification -- that all those things are "simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)", which is factually incorrect (OBE is essentially an approach to the management of education, while critical thinking skills are a skill area; the two are completely orthogonal) but independently of their justification, they do, in fact, state that they oppose teaching critical thinking skills.
And, looking beyond that, their further reason for opposing teaching all those supposed relabellings of OBE -- the potential to threaten students "fixed beliefs" -- is something that does not make sense for OBE at all (since OBE is content-neutral), but directly relevant to critical thinking skills (actual critical thinking skills, not any that would be a relabelling of OBE.)
Autonomously driving cars are awesome! Think about how many deaths could be prevented and how much more efficient/fast travel would be! Why don't they have a convention for autonomous vehicles with this type of publicity?
Because the self-driving car they've been testing isn't ready for external developers to do anything with (or even pre-order), unlike the products, services, and features covered at I/O.
I/O is a developers conference. Having a whole I/O style conference about an internal project that, while it is being tested, is far from being available to external developers would be kind of pointless.
Its hardly as if they haven't been actively promoting the work they are doing on autonomous vehicles, in venues that are appropriate to that.
Syncing stuff between phones and PCs offers about a 0.0000000001% improvement in my life quality.
I'm not really surprised that your individual direct benefit is not the sole factor in Google's planning of content for their annual developers conference.
Techy nerds & purpose of a developers conferen
on
Google I/O Day Two
·
· Score: 1
Google needs to develop more interest in things that can have an impact on humanity instead of small technical changes to consumer products that only techy nerds care about for 15 minutes. Yes, I know they do useful things, but a whole convention for these little contributions are pointless.
The whole point of the Google I/O developers conference is to provide information about Google's offerings to techy nerds (er, sorry, software developers) so that they can go and use Google's offerings to build products "that can have an impact on humanity."
If you aren't looking for things of interest principally to "techy nerds", you probably should be looking somewhere other than a developers conference (or, for that matter, a discussion site whose slogan is "News for nerds".)
Depends on the calendar system in use whether or not this is true; there is a year 0 in many calendar systems.
Due to various historical "stuff" the year just before "year 1 after Christ" is "year 1 before Christ". The Christ from the mythology was born in "the year 1 after Christ".
Actually, in both the major calendar systems that refer to a year "Before Christ" (B.C.), the years in the other direction are "Anno Domini" (or, in English, "Year of Our Lord"), not "after Christ".
The practice parallels the practice of numbering years within (not after) the reign of a particular monarch.
But, each of those calendars also has a widely used modern calendar whose year 0 corresponds the year 1 B.C. on the corresponding calendar system. (ISO 8601 year 0 is proleptic Gregorian year 1 B.C., whereas astronomical year 0 is Julian year 1 B.C.)
Also, a number of calendar systems that are unrelated to the Julian and Gregorian systems have a year 0; e.g., the Buddhist and Hindu calendar systems have a year 0, because they are based on an elapsed year count from the epoch point rather than an ordinal year number during a defined era.
Now, why would I want ICS on my current or next Android phone?
Why would Google want you to want ICS on your current or next Android phone when they are selling Jellybean devices and Jellybean includes enhancements designed to promote the use of Google services?
Can somone opine as to why exactly HP is doing this ?
Money, mostly.
What do they hope to get ?
See previous response. (Both in damages, and by not losing their existing Itanium-based business.)
Why dont they simply cut n run, and/or move HP-UX to x86 as they've already proven to themselves that it can run on x86.
They will, but that doesn't recover costs they expended in reliance on the agreement they had with Oracle to maintain support on Itanium, so they still want to win the case.
I mean, even if they win everything (damages and an order to Oracle to continue support their DB on Itanium), they are going to know that Oracle is going to do the bare minimum to not be held in violation of the order, that that might soften the decline of Itanium a bit and provide some funds that can be used either to soften it a bit more or to underwrite a pivot off of it, but it won't make Itanium viable in the long run.
Honestly what sort of person wants to push their whole life into google's data centres in such detail?
Most don't, just like most people don't want to give their money or personal information to the companies selling other products or providing other services that rely on access to personal information. Most people would prefer to keep their money and information.
What people do want is the the benefits they get from using the devices and services. The cost -- in money or information that has to be handed over to get those benefits -- is something that people may be willing to accept as a cost, not something that they "want".
Between this and the sort of tracking that appears to be happening on their new tablet, for your "convenience" leaves me wondering how much further Google wants to pry into our lives and perhaps something should be done about it.
Assuming you are referring to the "Google now" feature, that doesn't seem to do any more tracking than Google already has been for a long time, it just leverages the ability to data mine the data Google has stored for the user's direct benefit more.
Which may make more obvious how much tracking was already going on, and what people can learn by data mining, but it doesn't actually seem to be more tracking.
Years ago when the itanic was sinking, I heard shipping estimates as low as 200K processors annually. I'm sure its lower now. But that implies something on the order of $20K damages per processor shipped, which is astounding.
Why would you even think of damages in terms of "per processor shipped" (and, even worse, in terms of annual processor shipments)? Even assuming the estimates you refer to are accurate, the computation you make is meaningless.
if google can sell the nexus 7 at $199, amazon will have a new similar fire in a month at the same price and all the features of Amazon Prime as well.
But none of the features of the Google first-party apps that are bundled with branded Android (as opposed to the Android Open Source Project), which is what most of the features highlighted in the keynote were.
all the features are cool but won't be seen until there are 4.1 devices in the hands of users. lots of users. don't count on seeing most of these features for a few years until 4.1 devices are the majority of the installed base
While there are probably a bunch of new developer-facing features for which that would be true, the features announced in the keynote were almost entirely basic UI features or bundled-apps features, which will be "seen" by each user as soon as they get a Jellybean device, regardless of how many other people are using Jellybean or what third-party app devs do.
and i might buy a device when they ship sometime in 2015
The first Jellybean device, the Nexus 7 tablet, is shipping mid-July. So your estimate of how long it will take devices to ship is on the order of 2^6 times too long.
the features are nice but until there are real smart phones shipping with it, its vaporware.
Yeah, a mobile operating system that is only supported by tablets doesn't really exist.
Also, there are indications that the already-available Galaxy Nexus will be getting Jellybean directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, B&N's Nook Tablet.
If HP had signed a contract to support Win8RT the way Oracle signed a contract to support Itanium, then, yes, MS could sue HP for breach of contract.
Legal merit is dependent on legally-relevant facts, of which, in a breach of contract suit, the actual existence of a contract is a prime example.
I think that Google's point with the Nexus Q is hinted at by several things:
It's so nice to have both, that Google decided to put a TOSLINK digital audio output on the Nexus Q alongside the HDMI. I don't know where you got the idea that it had only HDMI and no digital output.
The thing to understand about patent law in the US is that there are effectively two separate systems of patent enforcement -- there are regular infringement cases that go through the federal district courts, and there are actions to block imports that go through the International Trade Commission.
These systems are governed by effectively different law, which makes defenses that would be applicable in regular federal court unavailable in ITC proceedings. It is thus often possible to use the ITC process to block import of products (at least temporarily) when it would not be possible to win an infringement case in the regular courts.
Onshoring is complete protection against the use of the ITC process, which has been an important weapon in the ongoing patent wars.
I don't think its the main reason Google did it with the Nexus Q -- the ability to shorten cycle time between design, engineering, and manufacturing that they've cited is a compelling reason that fits with what has been well-documented about Google's general approach to products -- but given the patent wars raging between Apple, Microsoft, Google, and -- for the latter two -- affiliated hardware manufacturers, its a valuable benefit.
Actually, the 2001 recession started before 9/11 and ended shortly thereafter (March-November 2001), it wasn't caused by 9/11.
The next recession (the longest since the Great Depression) started 6 years later (Dec 2007-Jun 2009.)
The perception of a continuous recession is understandable, given the fact that the post-2001 expansion, for a number of reason (including changes in tax policy in 2001 -- which also occurred before 9/11) saw the rewards of the expansion focussed unusually narrowly, such that (IIRC) the bottom three quintiles saw real income declines despite aggregate economic expansion, the next quintile was essentially flat, and even most of the top quintile saw fairly weak income growth, with only something like the top 5% seeing significant growth.
But none of that was a result of the 9/11 attacks, it was all stuff we did to ourselves.
It claims that Outcome Based Education has that goal (which is a flat-out false statement) and it claims that the other things it opposes (which are not all programs, particularly "teaching critical thinking skills" is not a program, though one might adopt a program that does that) are relabellings of Outcomes Based Education.
The rest of the sentence is their justification for opposing the things they oppose, not the list of the things they oppose.
Interestingly, you omitted a lot of the rest of the sentence without any indication. Which is kind of hypocritical, given your comment above. Particularly, the part where they claim that things in the list that they oppose are secretly relabellings of Outcome Based Education. The part you quote above actually is their description of what "Outcomes Based Education" supposedly is
Interestingly, that description its more true of what actually teaching critical thinking skills is about (its bizarrely narrow subset of what critical thinking is about, and deliberately phrased in loaded language) than it is of Outcomes Based Education -- OBE has nothing to do with behavior modification, unless you are talking about behavior of those evaluating education systems and students, whereas teaching critical thinking skills does, in fact, focus on modifying the behavior students exhibit when exposed to information, and does in fact have the purpose of challenging "fixed beliefs" and undermining irrational bases for the acceptance of claims, including authority (including implicitly, though its not a particular focus, parental authority it is a fallacious basis for accepting a fact claim.)
A better analogy would be if someone (Republican or not) said "I oppose giving students balanced school lunches, which are simply a relabelling of the Zagat Guide Ratings, which has the purpose undermining malnutrition." (Its not quite a perfect analogy, because I can't really think of something that does the trick that the Texas Republican platform does of picking out what happens to be an accurate subset of the purpose of critical thinking skills, but using loaded language and a highly selective presentation to make it appear scary.)
OBE isn't a teaching technique, its a system for evaluating educational systems and students within them (obviously, how you assess effectiveness will, in an ideal world, inform what approaches you take down the line, but OBE is not in itself a teaching technique.)
Critical thinking skills also aren't a teaching technique, they are a subject matter that is taught. They can be taught within a system that uses traditional input-based methods of system evaluation and traditional relative-performance based evaluations students, or within a system that uses objective outcomes-based measures for both systems and students, and by any of a variety of teaching techniques independently of the system of evaluation.
The only relation between the two is that OBE is an application of critical thinking skills to education, rather than equivalent to teaching critical thinking skills.
(OBE, incidentally, isn't particularly a liberal thing; its more of a "run education like an efficient business" thing. Ideologues on the left and right both often oppose it, because it threatens to reveal that practices driven by ideology that are sold as effective actually, objectively, are ineffective.)
That much is true.
Well, you could, if the measurable objective standard you set was ability to recite accurately a particular set of propaganda points. But you could do that with traditional education measured by inputs (time, study materials presented) just as well in OBE, you'd just set the material inputs to be, say, Mao's Little Red Book or the Texas Republican Party 2012 platform.
Both OBE and the approaches it is defined in contrast to are about the mechanisms by which you assess systems of education (and students within them), not what the content is or the goals are. The content and goals come from the outside and, in OBE, would dictate what outcome measures you use.
"Critical thinking skills" are not a program, they are subject area of education. They falsely claim that that subject area of education is (and a number of other things, one or more of which may be a program, are) a relabelling of Outcome Based Education (which is a content-neutral approach to managing education.)
They claim further that they oppose all those supposed relabellings of Outcome Based Education becaue of those approaches "challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority", none of which have any relationship to Outcome Based Education (which is about setting meaningful, objective, consistent outcome measures, and measuring student performance and progress against them, not about what the areas are in which those goals are to be set) but both of which are valid characterizations of actual critical thinking skills, which do deliberately challenge the very idea of "fixed beliefs" and the unquestioning acceptance of any authority.
Even if true -- and, on that point, citation needed -- how is this relevant to either the merits of actual OBE, or the Texas Republican party's opposition to "critical thinking skills" that is justified by the claim that "criticial thinking skills" are simply a relabelling of OBE?
Please remember that the 2012 Texas Republican Platform isn't the same thing as the actual practices of the Texas State Government (or local education agencies within Texas) that have produced the "recent experience" of Texas' actual educational outcomes.
You seem to be dangerously close to endorsing the idea that education should be assessed by objective measures of how students perform, rather than by what material is presented. Which would be ironic, when you seem also be trying to attack the idea of OBE.
If one were to actually read the platform, one would note that the Texas Republicans -- and this is a direct quote -- "oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs".
They claim -- as justification -- that all those things are "simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)", which is factually incorrect (OBE is essentially an approach to the management of education, while critical thinking skills are a skill area; the two are completely orthogonal) but independently of their justification, they do, in fact, state that they oppose teaching critical thinking skills.
And, looking beyond that, their further reason for opposing teaching all those supposed relabellings of OBE -- the potential to threaten students "fixed beliefs" -- is something that does not make sense for OBE at all (since OBE is content-neutral), but directly relevant to critical thinking skills (actual critical thinking skills, not any that would be a relabelling of OBE.)
Because the self-driving car they've been testing isn't ready for external developers to do anything with (or even pre-order), unlike the products, services, and features covered at I/O.
I/O is a developers conference. Having a whole I/O style conference about an internal project that, while it is being tested, is far from being available to external developers would be kind of pointless.
Its hardly as if they haven't been actively promoting the work they are doing on autonomous vehicles, in venues that are appropriate to that.
I'm not really surprised that your individual direct benefit is not the sole factor in Google's planning of content for their annual developers conference.
The whole point of the Google I/O developers conference is to provide information about Google's offerings to techy nerds (er, sorry, software developers) so that they can go and use Google's offerings to build products "that can have an impact on humanity."
If you aren't looking for things of interest principally to "techy nerds", you probably should be looking somewhere other than a developers conference (or, for that matter, a discussion site whose slogan is "News for nerds".)
Well, except that its not one of Google's public betas, but a limited preview.
Depends on the calendar system in use whether or not this is true; there is a year 0 in many calendar systems.
Actually, in both the major calendar systems that refer to a year "Before Christ" (B.C.), the years in the other direction are "Anno Domini" (or, in English, "Year of Our Lord"), not "after Christ".
The practice parallels the practice of numbering years within (not after) the reign of a particular monarch.
But, each of those calendars also has a widely used modern calendar whose year 0 corresponds the year 1 B.C. on the corresponding calendar system. (ISO 8601 year 0 is proleptic Gregorian year 1 B.C., whereas astronomical year 0 is Julian year 1 B.C.)
Also, a number of calendar systems that are unrelated to the Julian and Gregorian systems have a year 0; e.g., the Buddhist and Hindu calendar systems have a year 0, because they are based on an elapsed year count from the epoch point rather than an ordinal year number during a defined era.
Why would Google want you to want ICS on your current or next Android phone when they are selling Jellybean devices and Jellybean includes enhancements designed to promote the use of Google services?
Money, mostly.
See previous response. (Both in damages, and by not losing their existing Itanium-based business.)
They will, but that doesn't recover costs they expended in reliance on the agreement they had with Oracle to maintain support on Itanium, so they still want to win the case.
I mean, even if they win everything (damages and an order to Oracle to continue support their DB on Itanium), they are going to know that Oracle is going to do the bare minimum to not be held in violation of the order, that that might soften the decline of Itanium a bit and provide some funds that can be used either to soften it a bit more or to underwrite a pivot off of it, but it won't make Itanium viable in the long run.
Most don't, just like most people don't want to give their money or personal information to the companies selling other products or providing other services that rely on access to personal information. Most people would prefer to keep their money and information.
What people do want is the the benefits they get from using the devices and services. The cost -- in money or information that has to be handed over to get those benefits -- is something that people may be willing to accept as a cost, not something that they "want".
Assuming you are referring to the "Google now" feature, that doesn't seem to do any more tracking than Google already has been for a long time, it just leverages the ability to data mine the data Google has stored for the user's direct benefit more.
Which may make more obvious how much tracking was already going on, and what people can learn by data mining, but it doesn't actually seem to be more tracking.
No, its available to order now in the Google Play store, with units shipping in mid-July. See, to pick one of many sources, here.
Those, too, but so is the Nexus 7.
Why would you even think of damages in terms of "per processor shipped" (and, even worse, in terms of annual processor shipments)? Even assuming the estimates you refer to are accurate, the computation you make is meaningless.
It doesn't include a card reader, if that's what you mean.
Portable DVD players are much cheaper than tablets for this task.
But none of the features of the Google first-party apps that are bundled with branded Android (as opposed to the Android Open Source Project), which is what most of the features highlighted in the keynote were.
While there are probably a bunch of new developer-facing features for which that would be true, the features announced in the keynote were almost entirely basic UI features or bundled-apps features, which will be "seen" by each user as soon as they get a Jellybean device, regardless of how many other people are using Jellybean or what third-party app devs do.
The first Jellybean device, the Nexus 7 tablet, is shipping mid-July. So your estimate of how long it will take devices to ship is on the order of 2^6 times too long.
Yeah, a mobile operating system that is only supported by tablets doesn't really exist.
Also, there are indications that the already-available Galaxy Nexus will be getting Jellybean directly.