Of course I know what an API is. What does that have to do with anything?
Let's recap. You said "My point is that Android is no longer purely an "open source" OS."
I answered that the closed portion of what Google distributes (gApps) is not part of the OS. The OS itself is open. The proof is right on my phone -- all Android, but no closed source Google code at all.
The links you added in your next two comments don't address this issue at all. They're talking about gApps. You don't need to use gApps to have a fully functioning Android device.
I agree. If there's a fight, then a grownup needs to break it up. I could see an extreme circumstance where the police would be useful to do that (maybe everyone has guns?), but outside of that, the cops aren't needed for that sort of thing.
I don't follow this. Perhaps there are a couple of commenters here who are the exception, but the majority of comment about Swartz that I've read don't contradict that quote at all.
It is acknowledged that in the end, Swartz' decision was his own. Only a tiny minority has said that the feds should be charged with murder or otherwise held criminally responsible for his suicide.
What has been said is that the feds abused their power to make an example of him, and that the effort contributed heavily toward his suicide, and that they should be held responsible for that abuse of power even if he had not killed himself.
That quote stood out to me as well. I had two reactions to it. The first is much like yours, but I also had a second thought. What they claim is being misunderstood is "their intentions". However, intentions are only a side show in the first place. I don't care one bit what their "intentions" are. I care about what the language of the TPP actually allows.
"While the sheriff went overboard, I cannot say that he was wrong."
If he went overboard, then he was wrong. Regardless of that, the sheriff was clearly just plain wrong. There is no evidence of criminal conduct on the part of these kids, so no charges should have been pressed.
When it comes to the larger issue of bullying, I would argue that this is an issue that (generally_ shouldn't involve law enforcement at all. It should be handled by the school and parents. The main problem is that schools and parents are often terrible at handling the issue -- that's what needs to be fixed. Bringing cops into the mix fixes nothing at all. It only makes the whole situation even worse.
It's no so weird -- it's because of how "hibernate" is defined. Hibernation requires the animal to down-regulate their body temperature or metabolic rate. Ectothermic animals such as fish are incapable of regulating either temperature or metabolic rate, as so can't hibernate by definition.
However, fish can absolutely enter a dormant state (which is the same condition that is achieved through hibernation) when their temperature or metabolic rate is reduced due to environmental conditions such as water temperature or water oxygen content falling below certain levels.
In the end, it's the same state. It's how you get there that determines if it's hibernation or not.
There's a third possibility. If the US gets and executes (or imprisons for life) Snowden, then he becomes a martyr. This could actually encourage further whistleblowing and more active resistance to the tyranny.
""increasing numbers" which is why only 25% of households don't have cable...."
According to the CEA, 17% of US households that have TV have no cable. In 2010, that was 12%. Sounds like increasing numbers to me.
"And it seems to me that the so-called "cord cutters" want to watch the content yet don't want to pay...."
And yet, many of them do pay. They just don't pay the cable companies. Of the people I know who've ditched cable, they've done so for two reasons: they're sick of dealing with the cable company, and they don't want to pay the crazy cable prices when all they really want to do is watch a couple of shows. Wanting content for free doesn't enter into it.
That's a nonsequitor. While it's true that everyone has monetary expenses they need to cover, why does that fact mean that working without compensation stifles creativity and innovation?
Besides, pretty much the entirety of mankind's history shows this is not true: from as far back as we know, up to today, enough truly creative and innovative things have been developed by people without compensation to indicate that there's little, if any, correlation there.
"Internet" is not an acronym for "international network". It's a neologism relating to interconnecting networks (the internet is a "network of networks".)
The internet was absolutely a US creation. A DARPA creation, specifically, intended for military use. It's availability to the general public of any country was never part of its original design intent.
All that said, the right thing to do is what has been taking place, slowly but surely, since it opened to the public: keep it out of the control of any single nation. The internet has grown into something completely other than what it started as.