In the next year or two Apple should do pretty well. Once upon a time MS was the dominate player, as was Yahoo and a myriad of others. Nokia was the cell phone to beat just a few years ago. The rise and fall of big companies is accelerating.
Most people tend to overlook Google's primary business, which is putting internet advertising in front of as many eyeballs as possible. This why ANDROID is free; it puts more eyeballs on the internet. So will cheap or free handsets and/or tablets.
Operating systems and handsets are merely the platform to mount eyeballs on the WEB page. Don't be surprised when Google starts offering inexpensive or internet connecting deceives with cheap or free airborne bandwidth sometime around 2013.
Microsoft/Nokia are too last century; too steeped in dieing business models; likewise Apple, which is still an integrated systems company.
> So if you're in China, and you want access to a banned site like YouTube, you just type YouTube.com into your browser, and the Telex station will see that connection, and disguise it as something innocuous.
Only if China or the UK don't block access to the Telex station. China can block the TOR connection and to bypass the Great Firewall you need a VPN, which can then reach TOR.
So at the end of the day the average Joe is dependent upon governments and ISPs to allow access to anonymous networks. There has to be a better way.
This is the beginning—from "I" to "we". If you who own the things people must have could understand this, you might preserve yourself. If you could separate causes from results, if you could know that Paine, Marx, Jefferson, Lenin were results, not causes, you might survive. But that you cannot know. For the quality of owning freezes you forever into "I", and cuts you off forever from the "we".
Being on the ground in Beijing, I can confirm your informed observation. I know lots of Chinese people and I haven't yet met a disgruntled protester; though I am sure there are some in a country of 1.35 billion people.
The NY Times had a fairly evenhanded report on the situation, which appeared on page 10 of the Times. One Chinese merchant interview at the scene thought the extra police presence had something to do with the meeting of the legislature, which began the same day.
Being an American living in Beijing for over two years now, I can say that the "Jasmine Revolution" is a non-event in Beijing. The only people whom seemed to respond to this call to action were the government & the police. I had to explain the "Jasmine Revolution" to my Chinese wife, who, though pretty informed and able to access media from the "free world," didn't know about it.
True, there could be more freedom of speech in China, (and there is a modicum of free speech, especially on community issues) but the socioeconomic conditions in China right now make a "Jasmine Revolution" pretty unlikely. Whereas, the socioeconomic conditions in the West could easily create a "Jasmine Revolution" there.
The anti-Chinese bias in the "free press," especially the British press, is pretty astounding.
Well if you ask the Bush administration or their lawyers, the torture part of this investigation process is totally justified. Anything is justified if it helps "national security" for the Homeland. Hopefully, some conscientious citizen followed Janet Napolitano's suggestion and reported his suspicious activity to local authorities.
And it may well be that these people were watching purloined copyrighted material, probably illegally downloaded. So maybe torture isn't justified just for that, but they probably owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the copyright holders.
Plus we all know that surreptitious surveillance of a country's citizens is the always legal and in the best interest of the homeland.