I'm not sure I agree. The problem with Google's solution is that it does not do just what I described, split the security auditing from the distribution. To get software Google does not approve of (for any not necessarily disclosed reason) you have to go out on a limb and try to independently verify the security of an app, and frankly 99% of users can't do that. This is one of the major reasons why there is such a malware problem on Android compared to the other phone platforms.

You're missing the point. There are also app stores for jailbroken iPhones and numerous stores for Windows and Mac OS X. The problem with them is that they are separate stores with separate policies and separate interfaces trying to compete with a pre-bundled store. That's great for power users but not so great for normal users.

Again, I disagree. Both Apple and MS retain their models because of the benefits it brings them, but the model I proposed retains those benefits and actually provides more benefit to the company. It is my belief that both MS and Apple would make more money if they had a store in place that divorced auditing from distribution, but maybe not enough to offset the cost of building such a platform. Sometimes it doesn't take legal action to get something beneficial to the user, just enlightened self interest. Look at Apple's opposition to DRM on music. They fought long and hard to get DRM removed from contracts and to paint it in a negative light in the public eye. They didn't do this out of altruism, but because it made them more money by making the whole system better for end users and thus sold more music players.

From the interview:

The interesting thing here is that Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all building app stores with serious restrictions as a way to improve security, but aside from making stronger brands and improving user experience in removing malware, they don't get a lot out of the restrictiveness. Apple doesn't make money by not allowing pornography apps. There is potential for abuse, but realistically none of the major players have been doing a lot to promote their own software with these restrictions and seem mostly focused on preventing apps that kill battery life, could be malware, or create development chains controlled by their competitors in ways that leave them strategically vulnerable.

That said, I think they could all be persuaded to have more open policies, ones that would allow Steam to be a first class citizen, if they could get the same level of security. The main problem is that in all these walled garden stores the security auditing and the distribution system are tied together and managed centrally by one company. If we could persuade them to split these apart and allow third party security auditing that applies a filter to the distribution system and then put in place policies of completely open distribution, where they distribute anything... but by default apply a user editable filter that removes all the same things they do now it would still solve their security and battery woes for the mass market (potentially improving it by making it competitive) but also open up distribution for third parties like Steam.

In the above scenario Steam would face more competition as well, as much of their value added would already be bundled, but I'm sure Valve would be willing to go with it and innovate in order to earn their dollar.

Just to be clear, the right wing in the US is not advocating for fiscal conservatism. Conservatism is keeping with historical norms. Rather, they are advocating for fiscal extremism, levels of taxation progressiveness lower than anything in the last 50 years. That's the opposite of conservative.

Why does your perspective have to be so absolute? That seems to be the problem. Nothing prevents universities from bringing in any speakers they want so long as they do so within the bounds of the constitution and if they allow/pay one religion to speak they do the same for all. That seems to be the fundamental disconnect in my mind. When everyone is given equal opportunity, why do you whine about not being given more than equal opportunity?

Actually if you read the article and the actual policies at the university it claims to cite, this is about no employee making grades or employment based upon requirement that people have the same views. So no, it isn't about abortion... but lets continue.

You see I believe in freedom. For example, I believe 99% of people who shoot pigeons are jackasses. They're hunting for sport, wasting good meat, and they mostly are macho dickheads trying to compensate for their own inadequacy. I voted to give them the freedom to choose to continue this sport, even though I disapprove.

Even if I believed life began at conception I can still rationally demonstrate that that is just an opinion and unprovable. Further I can logically demonstrate it is a faith based opinion not supported by science. So even if I believe it, I would still support the right of other individuals to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and if there is a god, let him judge them.

It's called "freedom" and it's not just a bumper sticker or a campaign slogan. Maybe you should try believing in it instead of just saying it like a parrot.

Umm, yeah. Except all the other harassment about things like homosexuality, subservience to men, etc.

Is that truly what you believe the purpose of affirmative action is, punitive? Maybe you should read something that isn't from the right wing. Try reading how affirmative action changed, for example, politics and business in northern Europe removing in a few generations the prejudice of centuries.

Please. Before gay marriage Republicans fought against homosexuality being legal at all and after they lose gay marriage they'll still be fighting against the rights of gays to adopt children. Why do you hate freedom? For a party who opposes "big government" you sure do believe in the government making choices for other people and getting in people's personal business. Here's an idea, don't like gay marriage? Don't marry any gay people and shut the hell up and mind your own business.

Have you considered learning facts? They make decision making much more accurate.

Hah! I don't berate anyone unless they ask and then I berate Republicans and Democrats and independents equally. And you know what, you all deserve it for your hypocrisy and ignorance.

I think I've long since given up on changing people's point of view. People form opinions based upon irrational nonsense and then they go through huge leaps of logical gymnastics to try to justify it with a veneer of reason. My only hope is to try to promote reason and logic from an educational level and hope it can filter through to people starting to apply it in their lives, but I don't have a lot of hope. Frankly, you're probably a lost cause.

I think other posters have already covered that pretty well. The WSJ clearly was trying to misconstrue the facts and sensationalize.

This isn't about "cheerleading". I'm not particularly a fan of the NYT, but I certainly recognize them as a a normal, reputable newspaper that does research, vets their sources, makes an attempt not to print outright falsehoods, and prints retractions. Newscorp owned properties are something else. To pretend they should be given equal weight on their face is just absurd at this point. It really isn't news, it's an attempt to persuade.

If you get your news from a source that went to court to defend their constitutional right to lie to their readers/viewers, what else would such a person be called? You pretty much have to be uninformed and/or an idiot to trust such a "news" source.

Here's where you mistake. I'm not trying to convince people. That's rhetoric. I'm presenting a logical argument. Frankly, I don't expect people to change their minds as most people are just looking for anything to justify what they already believe. Instead I'm writing to respond to those that can still argue logically and really, fuck the rest of you. This is Slashdot, news for nerds. If you can't handle logic why would I care about your opinion?

Rational thinkers ignore the rhetoric you endorse. Wasting time coddling people who insist on believing things written by a propaganda company proven to repeatedly lie are the ones beyond hope.

I don't think "the tea party" qualifies as a comment nor as a topic of debate. You said whenever there was a comment liberals disagree with. What comments? So no, that's not even close to an example.

Further, while the Tea Party has certainly been criticized for various racist remarks made by members I don't think that is a major criticism of the Tea Party. If you to a search for "tea party criticism" the first hits have to do with: their criticism of Mitt Romney, requiring land to vote, Islam not being protected by the first amendment, mischaracterization of Jared Lee Loughner as "a liberal extremist", lack of compassion when lauding the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords", blasphemy by members, and that they can't create a coherent platform for voters. Racism doesn't even make the first two pages in Google. Perhaps you have a skewed perception of reality?

Yes, for heaven's sake. Let's just scream rhetoric and never try to address real facts or real world cases. Then we'd have to support our hyperbolic nonsense. If it is so easy, cite a few examples. Are you lazy or lying?

First, you don't seem to know what a "circular point" is. Second, we're not talking about a private organization "outlawing" free speech. Private organizations can't outlaw anything because only the government can create laws. We're not even talking about a private organization censoring speech in a location. We're talking about someone citing free speech criticizing them and their opinion on affirmative action, as though somehow they have a right to prevent people from talking about how they disagree with said person. That's not censorship it's the epitome of free speech.

Can you provide some examples of this? I read a lot of news and while I've certainly heard comments taken out of context by politicians used to insinuate racism. I don't recall seeing the vast majority of political and social issues being framed in terms of one position being racist. This sounds a lot more like the kind of inflammatory talking point you hear on "news commentary" shows and never backed up with any sort of facts.

I don't understand your argument. How is saying someone doesn't deserve a recount a potentially racist comment? What quote from Sharpton do you think is racist?

Umm, your perfect example is a hypothetical what you think Al Sharpton would do if a candidate was a democrat? That's not an example its a supposition. Your argument seems to be about people not talking about race, as an example of people talking about racism inappropriately. I guess I'm just not buying your argument. If you want to convince me you need to support it much more strongly than that. Have you really considered this objectively and come to this conclusion and if so, what convinced you of your opinion?

You make a very good point. If free speech is being infringed by the government we should all be concerned, regardless of who brings that issue to our attention or if the act is being done by a specific political party. I think, however, you go a little too far in your equivocation. The trustworthiness of our sources of information are important and by excluding particular details or simply misrepresenting the facts an issue of speech not being subsidized by a specific organization can be misrepresented as that speech being censored, and make no mistake these are very different things.

When you write, "WSJ vs. NYT" red flags go off in my mind. You're presenting not just publications favored by political parties, but one publication with a very solid history of integrity and factual presentation of information with a publication owned by a very deceptive corporation. The Newscorp organization is a big fan of free speech, insomuch as they went to court to defend their free speech rights to publish news stories they knew were untrue and to fire the reporters who refused to present them. And hey, they're correct. They do have the right to tell complete untruths to their viewers and readers. But at the same time their actions make it abhorrent to mention them in the same breath as the NYT and make me think anyone who believes anything they read in Newscorp publications is an uninformed idiot.

You seem to have a misconception about what free speech is. Your first example is about restricting people to particular locations in order to prevent their speech from being heard... all good so far. Your second example, however, is about someone exercising their free speech to criticize someone else's speech. It is an example of free speech, not an example of free speech being restricted.

You make a good point that we should be judging articles on their merit, however, technically it was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is the informal fallacy of claiming some argument is wrong based upon some characteristic of the person making the argument. The previous poster made no claim that the argument was wrong, but merely pointed out the untrustworthy nature of the publication and exposited on what they thought the content was likely to be. I highly encourage you to read a book on informal logic as it is a very useful tool/method and will help you not only argue with more precision, but refine your understanding of logically determining truths.

A lot of people seem wrongheaded about FRAND patents and I think it is because they are trying to justify pre-existing beliefs born of like or dislike of one of the litigants involved in this case. So lets just talk about FRAND in general terms using current developments in the auto industry.

Electric cars, the next big thing and they need to be able to charge the batteries. So, having many different connectors is inefficient and a standard for plugs is needed if we're ever going to build out infrastructure. But wait there are many ways to do it and many companies that already have patents on lots of potential solutions. Should we:

• Refuse to base the standard on any patented technology at all even if it makes the systems worse.
• Base it on existing, patented technologies resulting in a better standard technologically, but make sure any patents required to implement the new standard are licenses FRAND such that any auto company for a small fee can make electric cars that comply with the standard?

Generally, because it is industry players, we go with the second option, but does that mean auto-makers that were not making electric cars at the time the standard was made and who don't have patents involved in the standard should be forever frozen out of the market? Does that mean no new car companies will ever be allowed into the market? Because to make a new charging standard there are likely hundreds of patents and even if each one only demands .5% of the sale price of a vehicle, that quickly adds up to 100% for all companies that don't have patents in the pool. Does anyone here think that is reasonable for a standard or in any way good for innovation or society as a whole?

Standards are supposed to be about collaboration and reducing just this kind of bullshit and FRAND licensing is a necessary part of that, which is why you aren't allowed to price things discriminatorily in the first place. Google/Motorola is free to license or not license any non-FRAND patents to Apple or anyone else and charge any rate they damn well please. Apple is likewise free to license or not license any non-FRAND patents they damn well please. People conflating the two issues are missing the point and are cheering on abuse of the standard creation process and the end of the ability of any upstart company to engage in using standards. It's cheering on forcing the industry into stagnation and preventing the competitive marketplace and consumers from determining what is the best device... but maybe that's secretly what some people want. They don't want competition to result in the best product. They just want their "team" to win so they feel better about their purchase. Shame.

You mean dominance as in Apple's 35% smartphone marketshare in the US or Google's 65% search marketshare in the US?

Monopolies undermine competition in markets, thus what is best for consumers can still be worse for participants in the market. That's the whole reason we regulate monopolies and cartels, because our entire economy is based on the assumption of competition and it just takes one dominated market, leveraged into other markets to undermine the system.

You should not expect companies to act against their own best economic interests even if that is what is best for the industry. You should instead be pressuring your congresscritters to step in and get our existing antitrust laws effectively enforced.