"There was at least one occasion (long before Swartz arrest) when a co-worker was so concerned about him being suicidal that he called the authorities. Tragically, this young man was mentally ill- had previously written about committing suicide and talked about it often. Maybe his legal problems contributed, but why weren't the family and friends now blaming the prosecutors getting him the help he obviously needed?"
Um... so you're saying people close to him did what they could in going to the authorities to notify them of his problem previously... why weren't the authorities (who had been notified) getting him the help he obviously needed? Why was a prosecutor who would have access to this previous problem not take it into account in her bullying of him?
... that's great and all... but they're still apparently blocking access to Google Wallet because of that Isis thing they were thinking about maybe coming out with eventually to compete. Yes, there are "work around"s to get Wallet on there but the same could be said for the tethering apps. And that's not even taking into account how Verizon is dragging it's heels on approving updates to android phones so that they come out 6ish months after AT&T and T-Mobile get them, like with the Galaxy Nexus 4.0.4 update (despite Verizon having it "exclusively" in the US for a bit)
... if DMCA demands they return the content to where it was previously if it's shown to be a wrongful takedown, why don't they loose safe harbor for not complying with it?
I have that horrible sinking feeling it's because it'd help the user, not the copyright holder and thus no one cares enough to enforce it.
so... should we flag all their stuff on youtube as inappropriate as they'd never use a company they're suing like that and thus this must be some dirty impersonating freetard pirate?
or... should we contact their layers to get them to take it down for us? Might as well get the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing to work for us at least this one time.
where children were returning from school at 4:15 pm... but the whole family in the house just happened to be asleep then? in the same room... why do I think there's more to this story then we're being told?
err. I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly, android 2.1 2.2 and 2.3 are all freely available, and Google has said ice cream sandwich (2.4 or 4.0, depending on what they number it) will be freely available too. So taking 3.0/3.1 (which google specifically said was an exception to the rule) only and claiming Android as a whole is not free is misleading at best.
There's more issues to it as google has certain apps it requires on the phone to be associated with Google, and most wireless providers are requiring phone manufacturers be compliant with google's association because they want google's apps. But that's not google dictating on it's own.
... so, if Universal wants to make linking to pirate sites illegal... and it lists thisis50.com as a pirate site... and then links to the site via their own site... shouldn't they order ICE to take down Universal's site (for a few months at the least with no warning or way to officially object)?
Wait, what was I thinking, the rules don't apply to Universal cause they're the ones making them.
I somehow don't see them directly competing against eachother for a while. Chrome OS is aiming at the very inexpensive laptop market (which will be good for students, non gamers, and lower income families after the basics of the internet), where as android is on high end smartphones (and looks to be moving to the crazy expensive controlled house market). I'm sure as both try to expand who they target (inexpensive phones, higher end laptops, tablets being fought over by both) they'll eventually collide, but that's probably a ways off.
I didn't know Android didn't use the Chrome browser though, I do find that odd, but I', assuming they're using some stock open source browser so that it's more tightly integrated with Android. It might have been a decision from the beginning so as not to require all android users be stuck with a non open browser, but then we have to remember most android phones come with google maps and email by default...
Kinda hope I'm wrong, but the cynic in me is saying they're using NSLs so that if they find something they don't want the public to know, it stays under national security lock instead of possibly be open to public scrutiny through FOIA type requests? but I dunno how any of this stuff interacts, so I'm probably way off.
how much of the poor ui, incompleteness, and instability are from motorola sticking their own cruddy apps and ui on top of stock honeycomb though? how's their own app store doing? and since the os is "open" why aren't they fixing it all themselves if they're already willing to much around in the coding for things their customers dont care for?
so... theoretically, we can kick her off all internet the moment this law goes into effect as we have a plausible accusation to level at her?
What's that? It won't work cause the accusation has to come from someone she's getting all buddy buddy with for putting the law into place, so it won't ever be used on her? gogo governmental hypocricy!
I was pretty sure I read somewhere that the congress people were playing against a slowed down or reduced capacity version of Watson, but can't remember where I read it now... Making it possibly significantly less interesting depending on how reduced the capacity of the system was, but since it wasn't televised, I guess we'll never know.
I'm wondering if they can get around this by having people buy content outside (for a PC reader), and then claiming they get a "free" copy for the apple app... but I'm assuming apple wouldn't fall for that that easily.
... the government's denial of access to this stuff sounds a whole lot like the problem with DRM on games/programs/media... the people who should have access to it get impeeded, while everyone else on the planet can access the info in a more reasonable manner.