Hilariously rated as Flamebait, even though this is a normal experience for any conservative or libertarian on a college campus.

I've never been treated so poorly, nor dismissed with such regularity, as on a college campus, for my libertarian leaning views. People are *far* more open minded in urban slums, poor rural farmland, or on union shop floors; places that one would not expect to be staffed with libertarians or conservatives.

Yeah, because North Korea doesn't ever start anything.

Not like North Korea has a history of starting violent border incidents.

I think there is no serious dispute that if the North Koreas experience significant disruptions during a leadership transition when "Dear Leader" dies, there will be a fairly serious war.

See my post on Project Orion.

With nuclear pulse propulsion, one-way trip time to Mars would be 125 days. No need to stop.

This is dumb, dumb, dumb.

There is only one reason this is described as a "one-way" mission; Mankind's incredibly stupid reliance on chemical rockets. Chemical rockets *will not* allow us to explore any of outer space in a meaningful way, with the possible (and expensive) exception of near earth orbit.

We already have the technology to jet where-ever we want around the solar system. Project Orion.

There was a BBC show on it.

The short story: It was a design to use small nuclear explosives to push up against an abalative impact plate with shock absorbs. One pulse every 120 seconds. Significant levels of acceleration, and a mass to energy ratio that would make any rocket scientist blush. We could *easily* send a million ton spacecraft to Mars, with more than sufficient fuel to return several massive (10s of thousands of tons) spacecraft back to earth.

We could do round trips every 6 months without blinking an eye, with the added side effect of using much of the world's weapons grade nuclear fuel. Enhancements to the design switched from Fission to Fusion; at which point Orion spacecraft would be able to start to move around interstellar space. Early designs using current materials could achieve 0.05-0.1c . Designs using future materials (or possible relying upon non-solid ablative surfaces (this includes a plate that is sprayed with an oil solution before each blast)) could theoretically achieve .8c . This would make round-trips to Alpha Centauri possible.

How do you get around the nuclear radiation issues? Simple. First, there's no serious issue with radiation in space; build it in orbit, and there's not much to worry about. Second, the fallout/radiation from direct planetary launches would be dwarfed by weapons tests that occurred in the past, and probably by fossil fuel plant emissions, as well. The total fallout released from a planetary launch of a 6,000 ton vehicle would be equal to a 10-megaton nuclear blast (roughly one worldwide instance of cancer per launch), even using thermonuclear blasts. Further refinements to the technology could significantly reduce that; and mankind has pursued far less interesting pursuits that have caused a great deal more fallout (and heighted rates of cancer) than a real, "nuclear" space program.

In an ideal world, we'd build a few *huge* orion stations, and launch them into orbit. I'm talk multi-million ton hulks. The fallout from these launches would be significant, but would still be smaller in magnitude than the fallout from the various nuclear weapons tests that occurred during the cold war. These stations would contain the industrial complex needed to build additional ships, and smaller vessels capable of mining the needed materials from the moon. Hopefully, there are sufficient levels of fissionable and fusible materials on the moon. At that point, man kind could return to using chemical rockets as ferries to get into space; to deliver small cargos and personnel to the constructions stations.

How would you pay for this venture? That begs the question: Whats the best way to profit of a massive nuclear pulse drive in space? To move asteroids! Mining of the asteroid belt would be a serious proposition, and the low gravity (and lack of atmosphere) makes the usage of our Orion drives even more palpable. It would be necessary to figure out a cheap way to return these metals to earth; however, initial studies have suggested that even very small asteroids (1 mile diameter) can contain tens of trillions of dollars of metals.

The loss rate would be terrific, but one could imagine breaking asteroids into 500 m chunks, surrounding them with layers of ceramic heat shield, and them aiming them for the middle of the ocean, Siberia, or other wasteland type area. I have a feeling we can devise a more elegant solution over time.

This could happen in our lifetime. We could already be living this if NASA hadn't given up on Orion in the 1960s because of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This is the future of space travel, not tiny chemical rockets which cost tens of thousands of dollars to move a kilogram.

One, it isn't clear that there is all that much gold in "getting the software on as many units as possible"(at least if you have to compromise as much as Google has to do so.

See my other posts in this topic.

I agree with you that Android was started defensively. At this point, however, as a company which primarily sells Ads and Commercial Information, I cannot imagine that Google sees anything as more important that collecting data from "smart" devices in individual pockets.

Android revenue, Google Market Revenue, NFC revenue; all that is small potatoes to the information that can be gleaned from location aware Android devices.

I think that for Google the primary driver for Android is not device/app revenue, but device/app data collection.

Google wants to know *everything* about you. With an Android device, they have expanded the realm of knowledge from:

Everything you do on the computer

To:

Everything you do on a Smart Phone.

This may include:
What time you get up in the morning (alarms)
What time you leave your home.
When you usually return to your home.
How often you go to bars.
How often you work (and for how many hours)
The length of time you commute.
How you commute.
The ratio of how much you walk/drive/take the subway.
Who you talk to.
How long you talk on the phone.
How long you spend in a given store!
How long you spend at a given mall; or restaurant; or gym.
What you comparison shop for via Smartphone while at a given store.
What you text your friends.
The content of your voicemails.
What you like to take pictures of!
How much you spend, and on what.
When you check your e-mail. When you check your text messages. What hours are you willing to take business calls. What hours are you unwilling to take any calls. Which hours are you most responsive to e-mails/texts/calls/voicemails/ads.
What books you read. What websites you frequent.
Etc.

Android devices are lifestyle devices, as are Google TV devices. Google can use this information to build a file on you as sophisticated as the Nielsen company can build a database on a given demographic.

All that being said, I'm relatively okay with it. We are inundated with advertising in modern life. Google's secret is to make it slightly more subtle, and a great deal more tailored to a given individual.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I have *NO* problem with a salesman selling a good product, at a reasonable price, to fit my needs. Particularly if he is a salesman who is easy for me to get along with. The more Google can work on making the ads I see less offensive to me, the happier I will be. Especially if Google continues to make a clear delineation between "Featured (paid)" listings and "Normal Search Data".

Err....

i'm puzzled why people think Google's ultimate aim was or should have been to make money on Android.

Maybe because they are a business????

Looks, it's really simple.

Apple makes iPhones, so that people buy iPhones, buy cell service from ATT (and soon Verizon), so that ATT (and soon Verizon) pay kick backs to Apple. Apple also generates revenue off Apps and Media sales.

Google built Android; so that Google can collect data, which is then used to better improve Google's searches. Improving Google's searches, and Google's ability to manipulate knowledge, enables Google to sell ads and other "in-the-cloud" services better.

For Apple, the iPhone is the platform. For Google, the Cloud is the platform. That's why iPhones are expensive, droid devices tend to be cheaper, and Google's network services are better.

Oh, and that's why Google builds services for other platforms; its not about selling Android phones, its about collecting data! Android phones collect data better than iPhones, but why limit the market?

And the mirror image of that is why the Apple App store is not available on other platforms; selling Applications is a secondary goal; selling iPhones (and the monolithic iOS ecosystem) is the primary goal, and the primary revenue driver.

People are going to have to understand that both companies are working for the betterment of mankind, but both companies seek to maximize revenue while they are at it. Google's profit drivers push Google toward being and omniscient, if usually benevolent big-brother in the cloud. Apple's profit drivers push Apple toward a monolithic ecosystem with Jobs firmly in control. But it is a *very* well designed ecosystem in which 3rd parties who are willing to play by the rules can prosper.

Shades of gray. Capitalism at work. The invisible hand. An exhibit in how pursuing the amoral in a competitive landscape can achieve the greater good.

*shrug*

basically. Google didn't monetize the hell out of it. that's a selling point. i'm tired of people / corporations thinking they can control me through their product just because they invented it. stop using your services as a launching platform for your personal holy crusades and simply provide people with what they want.

If that's what you are looking for, you should give up. Google's very clearly "giving away" services so that they can learn everything about you, and then tell Kraft exactly how many boxes of Mac and Cheese you might buy next month. For me, that's a reasonable trade-off; hell, you can argue that its a reasonable thing to make advertising "more relevant" and "more targeted".

The economy still is in serious recovery mode. You should be saving and investing right now.

That's an awfully large generalization. Saving only makes sense if you believe that the various factors that determine the savings rate you will get paid shall continue to exceed inflation (this is probably, but not necessarily, true in the short term). Investing only makes sense if you believe the market is going to rise, or you like to short stocks (IMHO, both of these things are currently risky; I think the market will continue to be volatile).

IMHO, make sure you have sufficient liquid cash to survive employment stocks. If your life plan includes a retirement nest egg, insure that it is sufficiently funded. Perhaps save 5-10% of your monthly income. Once you've reached those goals, you are better off "investing" in yourself. Fix up your house (and invest lots of sweat!). Work out. Eat healthier. Diet. Learn to cook, and cook healthier foods. Perhaps start a business?

But dumping a ton of money into Cisco/Apple/Boeing because you are "nervous"? Or buying a crap-load of TIPS or CDs? A poor decision. If you really feel the need to work on your life plan, read on book on retirement planning, or talk to a financial adviser.

It's a pretty silly decision to assume that the Great Depression II is coming; and to start saving as a result. Why? Because moderate strategies are an inappropriate response to economic calamity. Everyone should *always* have their economic house in order. The goals necessary to achieve that are relatively minor (cancel your cable; and put that $100 a month in a savings account. Go out to dinner a few less times. Stop dry-cleaning your white shirts, and learn to starch them yourself!). Once you hit a 5-10% savings rate, and are "on track" for retirement, you should stop pitching money into investment instruments; unless you have a long term plan to spend on something (car/house/business).

If you really think serious economic calamity is coming, its time to start buying guns, iodine pills, solar panels, and MRE rations. Maybe learn to grow your own food, and have a well installed (if you live in an area where ground water wells are legal). Perhaps have a windmill/panels put on your home.

But socking away every extra dollar? That will put you firmly into the camps of those who will be *screwed* first by the economic tidal wave.

Obviously, all of what I'm saying assumes you haven't blown every penny you have on strippers and coke (or diapers and college), and that you are currently both employed and on sound economic footing. If you are drowing in debt; or have no retirement plan; or are in imminent danger of job loss; well, yes, savings is probably a good idea.

But this is true whether or not the economic is in serious recovery mode. Forget the greater economic picture. All economic decisions are better made on a microeconomic level, and most of the macroeconomic diseases that appear tend to be panics that bias microeconomic decisions, or overspending related to bubbles of exuberance.

Well, you could cache the web, but I will leave that implementation as an exercise for the reader.

My voice plan through Virgin Mobile USA is currently $5 per month. Does any Android phone plan in the USA approach that?

You must have an unadvertised plan. The cheapest pay-go option Virgin advertises in the US is $20 per 3 months, at a per minute rate of $0.20. This means a total of 100 minutes, at a cost of $6.67 per month. The average person uses more than 33 minutes per month; some of us work on our cell phones; some of us don't have land lines, either at work or at home.

My usage regularly approaches 2000 minutes a month, and I very rarely talk to friends and/or family. 2000 minutes a month, by the way, is only 100 minutes per work day; this is not an unreasonable amount for anyone who must participate in tele-meetings, be available for sales calls, or perform any number of phone related work functions.

I would hazard a guess that the average usage per month for a working-age American is 400-600 minutes. Even at Virgin, you're talking $40 per month, before taxes. And those plans come with unlimited Data, and an Android phone is available!

For $110 a month, you get a device from Sprint like the EVO (or other top Android phone), unlimited Data access, unlimited voice minutes, and unlimited messaging. For me, it is a no brainer to have a 4.3" tablet in my pocket with unlimited 4G Data/Voice/Messaging, than to spend anything on TV service; or landline, or any other number of luxuries. And I do know that there are several other carriers that offer similar unlimited plans for about half the price. Unfortunately, those plans are all roaming prohibited, and for those of us that must use their phones regularly for work that can be a challenge.

On a per hour rate, I'm sure I spend a lot less on my phone than I might spend on drinks, dinners, movies, and any other number of "fluffy" luxuries.

A properly designed application will include an offline mode, not only for devices without 3G but also for use on an airplane or other areas where 3G has 0 bars.

True; and having access to 3G (or WiMax/LTE/HSDPA) in more places gives you greater flexibility as to what can be done with a properly designed "seamless" offline mode. As far as I'm concerned, the new Google Navigate options are superior to any DVD Navmap system. I just drove through the Sierra's, and the offline caching mode pretty much rocked. It's never a bad thing to have more options; it's never a bad thing to have faster (or greater volumes of) data access.

It all comes down to a value proposition. Are you willing to spend more than $6 per month on your phone? Apparently not. Do you spend $100 on TV? Drinks? Dinners? Books? Any other luxuries?

Depends on you employment situation, I would guess.

Would I rather spend $100 on Voice/Data rather than one-way crap like TV, or expensive crappy magazines, or movie rentals? Absolutely.

If you have to spend a couple of hours upgrading your interface before you can use your new toy then you should really think about finding a better toy.

A couple of hours? Not sure.

A couple of days? (Like a standard Windows or Linux install) Yuck.

The 5 minutes it took me to flash the G Tablet with a custom Rom? Totally worth it.

Do you buy a car and install a new steering wheel, gas pedal, and in-dash system before you drive it?Do you spend an hour putting the keys in your keyboard so the layout is just right?

No, but when I sit in a car, I adjust the mirrors, play with the Nav system, connect the bluetooth. I change the various user-specific settings, setup a user profile (in my Cadillac), and check the default tire pressures. I also like to review the manual. Maybe 30-60 minutes of setup time.

A new desktop?? 60-90 minutes of setup time, by the time I've routed the cables where I need them to be, plugged everything in, and organized my desk. Also install the default set of widgets on my OS X install, setup my E-mail account, sync LastPass, download my bookmarks, and start TeamDrive syncing to my data-in-the-cloud. Not to mention install the latest versions of iWork, iLife, Office, OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, and Skype. Oh, and run a standard "System Update".

Perhaps that's more like 120 minutes for the Desktop, and 60 minutes for the Laptop.

For my G Tablet? Plug in the USB cable. Copy over Clockwork Mod. Auto-flash it by holding down "Power" and "Volume UP". Copy over Vegan Rom. Flash it by holding down "Power" and "Volume Up", and scrolling down to "Update.zip". Wait 1 minute while the G Tablet reboots on its own.

Then setup my Google Account. Gmail/Contacts/Calendar/Talk are automagically configured. I manually setup Skype; but Titanium Backup can be used to handle stuff like that.

Total setup time? 10-15 minutes, including all the application installs. Easily the fastest gadget to setup in my stable; including Vehicles, TVs, Receivers, Game Consoles, etc! How do I know this? I just setup flashed mine from scratch. This after I set my dad's up two weeks ago.

Sure, an out-of-box iPad, iPhone, or iPod might be slightly faster. But you don't get as many of the "Google" in the cloud services, and the $200 savings is easily worth 15 minutes of my time (I like to think that I'm worth about $800 an hour). This is hardly an arduous process involving hours of work.

For those who want to know how it is done: click here. Also, it is my understanding that ROM Manager is rolling out G Tablet support, and can be directly installed after Z4Root. Both of these can be installed directly on to the G Tablet; simply click on the APK links you'll find online.

Now, I don't know what kind of toys you use, but the average gun nut/music nut/car nut/console nut/hunting nut/camping nut/painting nut will polish/oil/wax/arrange/organize/paint/sharpen/wire/whatever their gear for 15-20 minutes. That's not an unreasonable thing to recommend to someone.

I doubt Viewsonic will ever make the GUI as good as it should be.

Disclaimer: I have flashed my G Tablet.

The stock "TnT" software has improved *dramatically* since launch. Flash is an easy install off Viewsonic's website, and there is an easy way to drop down to "Classic" android.

That being said, custom Android roms rock; particularly custom tablet roms with Google Market preinstalled. I highly recommend Vegan.

I have one, and I got my dad one. I flashed both; and he is not particularly computer literate. He's using the device regularly.

I second this.

I flashed with the Vegan (I think) ROM. It's available on XDA developers. Total install time is 5 minutes.

That being said, the latest updates of the TnT interface aren't nearly as bad as the launched version. The device was nearly unusable at launch. It became mediocre 12/23/2010.

But it rocks with a custom ROM. The custom ROMs (like Vegan) tend to have Google Market pre-installed, which is quite slick.

But NK has a huge amount of artillery. If attacked, the regime would know they're going down and they would pretty much level Seoul. I recall reading, though I can't source it now, that there's too much NK artillery to take out in a quick strike, even for the US military. So they can't be taken down militarily without huge sacrifices in the South.

These days, the theory is that isn't really true.

I quote:
Barring the use of nuclear weapons or large-scale bombing runs, destroying a city requires an extended campaign of shelling and demolition, the likes of which the world hasn't seen since WWII. When the Chechen capital of Grozny was all-but-destroyed by Russian forces in 1999, it was the result of months of artillery and missile bombardments, as well as air strikes. There's no doubt that North Korea's massive deployment of artillery, and potential deployment of roughly 300 ballistic missiles, could wreak havoc on Seoul and its population. What's clear, however, is that a sudden barrage of shells and missiles would only mark the beginning of a battle for the city, not an apocalyptic fait accomplit.

The Battle for Seoul would be ugly. Lots of people would die. There would be immense losses of human life, and immense financial losses. But Seoul would emerge on the other side; 98% of the North's artillery would be obliterated within 96 hours, and the joint US/South Korean force would smash through the DMZ and conqueror Pyongyang in a matter of days. There would most likely be quite a few high profile losses in Seoul, but the city would survive.

North Korea maintains numerical parity with South Korea, but much of its' equipment is antiquated. The modern US/South Korean forces would achieve air dominance in a matter of hours, and the rest of the North would fold like a house of cards.

Now, obviously, peaceful unification (and regime collapse) would be preferable. No one, particularly the South, wants a war; but these days, it is pretty obvious who would win the war, and Seoul would not be lost.

I do think, however, that the North shelling Seoul would result in the end of the Northern regime. The South Korean street is known for being very temperamental, and a direct attack on Seoul would result in cries for "rivers of blood".