Same here: Nokias get excellent reception in areas where iPhone doesn't. WiFi is also weird on the iPhone and iPad.

The faulty assumption such a "peace plan" is that the "technical reasons" Apple states are the real reasons. The real reason Apple doesn't want Flash is because there are tons of excellent cross-platform games written in Flash that would kill both their lock-in and their cottage industry of iPhone games, many of which are just imitations of games already available in Flash.

Apple feels strong right now, and they want to leverage that strength as much as they can to kill competition and tie developers to their idiosyncratic platform.

Everything you describe already exists. What possible reason would people have to throw it all out and move to Microsoft't proprietary (and probably patented) standard?

There are plenty of solutions, for example FOAF, FOAF+SSL, and OpenID

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(software)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openid

objective-c is what c++ could have been had it not turned into an overly complex shitball

They're both shit, and for the same reason: they are based on C. Plain C was fine for what it was: a systems programming language, but you can't turn it into a modern application programming language. Objective-C stagnated and C++ turned into a "shitball" trying to compensate for C's deficiencies. On iPhone, I'm stuck with these losers. On other platforms, I have a choice.

Cocoa is a fantastic framework

Cocoa was a fantastic framework 20 years ago. Now it's obsolete.

That's my point though. How can a apx 515nm wavelength be a fully saturated green if the L cone is also being activated to some degree?

Because all light of a single wavelength is automatically "pure"; it doesn't matter what your cone responses are. The cone responses are just a code to transmit that information to your brain. Your cone responses are such that they overlap (for good reason), but that doesn't keep you from seeing pure colors.

And actually, you perceive color contrast anyway, not absolute RGB values or wavelengths. So, even if you get a group of cones to produce a pure "green" response somehow, that will simply be processed as being part of a strong red/green contrast and result just in a vivid green percept.

If they're Android based, the same knock offs and ports of iPhone apps and iPad apps that the Apple platform already has.

Unlike Gucci handbags, a software knock-off is often better than the original.

Apple apps will outnumber their apps 10:1

There are a few dozen apps on the iPad that are actually worth having, the rest is crap. How do I know? I have an iPad. Add to that the few dozen apps that Apple rejects on the iPad but that are really worth having and Android is already ahead.

Apple apps will be 2nd and 3rd gen

Easy to clone, in particular given that Android developers aren't hamstrung by Objective-C, Cocoa, and silly iPhone OS restrictions.

Until someone delivers a $99 consumer tablet, I put the iPad on top. And who's to say that Apple won't be the one who does?

Apple can barely deliver a VGA dongle for $99, let alone a whole computer.

Why then is the Crunchpad (sorry, JooJoo) $500?

Because it's was designed around the same time as the iPad. There's a new generation of processors and screens in the works.

That's misleading. A lack of a fully saturated green on a monitor is a limitation with the phosphors or dyes it uses. But monochromatic light of around 515 nm is pure, fully saturated green. Fully saturated green stimulates both your M and L cones ("G" and "R" cones); that's the way your eye works.

You can achieve non-physical responses from your photoreceptors via oversaturation, drugs, or electrical stimulation. That's interesting, but it isn't "green" and it isn't a "true qualia". Thinking of that as "green" is simply because you think of the M cone as a "green" cone and the L cone as a "red" cone, but those are just arbitrary names.

Maybe iPad sales are cutting into netbooks, maybe not. But what makes people think Apple can keep this up?

The MacBook Air looked like the granddaddy of netbooks, it was shiny and hot; and a year or two after its release, its just another expensive, light, and slow laptop for Mac users with too much cash.

The same is likely going to happen with iPads. Apple pushed the thing out the door quickly, but low-cost tablets have been in the pipeline for a couple of years, and you're likely going to see $200-$300 tablets with better specs than the iPad and no software restrictions this year.

If the growth rate drops off and is replaced by growth in iPads, how in the world is that not a takeover?

What makes you think the two are related? If netbook and iPad users are completely separate populations, you can still see the same behavior: one market gets saturated after a few years of sales, and a completely different market takes off.

Double LCDs don't really work all that well, and even if you sandwich them perfectly, there is still parallax.

The active LED backlight, on the other hand, actually works quite well; there are artifacts, but they happen to match the limitations of the human visual system pretty well.

If they really do the active LED backlight system on a per-pixel basis, then it's called an OLED display; you don't need the LCD at all anymore.

The gamut of the human eye is is not well approximated by mixtures of RGB pixels, even if they are perfect and ideal. You can do better with four or more pixel types. Furthermore, a yellow pixel likely also gives you more brightness and contrast. Similar things are done with printers (that's why many printers have 8 inks) and even some cameras. So, no, it's not hype. How well their particular monitor works depends on how good a job they did on the implementation. As for seeing the advantages, yes, they can also show you that. Obviously, they can't make the gamut of your TV bigger, but they can make it smaller by the same amount that their TV's gamut is larger than yours.

On the other hand, your brain compensates for, and becomes accustomed to, a limited gamut. That means that after working with a limited gamut device for a while, you won't notice much anymore. But side-by-side, the difference is obvious.

It hasn't yet led to people being disappeared in the middle of the night for voicing an unpopular opinion

Well, but it has apparently led to people not voicing unpopular opinions and venting their feelings; you yourself have canceled posts.

Politics in many areas might be rather different if people weren't afraid to say what they really think and feel.

Anybody who has contributed to a piece of GPL software has standing to bring lawsuits against people who violate the GPL. Who has contributed the "majority" of the code is immaterial. I'm sorry this is inconvenient for Bruce Perens, but it can't reasonably work any different.