That's not the point I was making.

All it takes is one smart kid to screw around. Then, he'll be so proud of himself if he finds something, that he'll find ways to show off his trick to as many other kids as possible (especially to the other kids with Chromebooks).

The same goes for a kid that finds the workaround online, or stumbles onto it through social media. He'll brag to other kids as if he invented the workaround himself.

Cheap Chromebooks the sim card explicitly removed and without the wifi password used to fill that niche, but now most new Chromebooks are touch-enabled and they'll be able to run Android soon. In other words, Google is about to mess it all up for parents.

And it won't be long until one kid figures out how he can download an apk to a usb stick or a memory card, and can play it on a friend's Chromebook. By the time 5th period rolls around, everyone in his school will have seen it done. And within a week or two, all kids who use Chromebooks in the entire United States will have seen it done (even if they themselves do not have direct internet access).

At that point, parents will just have resell their Chromebooks on Ebay and trade them in, for either paper notepads or old-fashioned electric type-writers. Or they'll be forced to just place the Chromebooks under lock and key like they've been forced to do with the wifi hub, the router, and everything else.

What is an "underachieving" driver? Someone who doesn't know how to park in parallel? Someone who only drives a few miles per year?

Either that, or it would be easy enough for someone to frame you by making sure you touch those metabolites before getting tested.

This movie, Mad Max: Fury Roads, looks extremely well crafted from the previews. It looks like a cross from Cirque du Soleil and the old Mad Max. I've only watched the previews, and I can't tell for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the so-called activist wasn't getting paid for his manufactured "outrage" as a form of guerrilla tactic by the movie creators themselves.

If you guys really want to watch a movie that's upsetting for men's rights to watch. Watch Hitch. The main character, Hitch, is supposedly the one exploiting women, and there is a political message obviously embedded in there, but somehow, the smart hot woman he is after is the one who is constantly treating him like crap. And the more she treats him like crap, the more he falls in love with her. In the end, they end up together, but I'm not even sure why that is. He's obviously in love with her, but there is no indication she even likes the guy (except for the jet ski sessions and all the other free stuff he gives her may be?).

And before someone starts criticizing my observation because the pathetic character in Hitch was the male this time, I can think of quite a few movies where it's the woman who is stuck in a one-sided love and the situation is the complete opposite. It's just that in those other movies, that kind of pathetic behavior doesn't get celebrated by the audience and those other movies do not come out specifically on Valentine's day as a model for couples to watch together and emulate.

Yes, but the lawsuit doesn't compare black student's test scores with asian test scores, it specifically compares white people's test scores with asian test scores instead. In other words, this lawsuit has nothing to do with black people taking the places of asians. It's only addressing the issue of white people with significantly lower test scores taking the places that should be going to asians instead.

And that's the thing, why do white people need to be protected from asians? And why are we even pretending that there was never any racism against the Chinese or the Japanese for instance? Because, there sure was. From the building of the railroads, to the internment camps of Chinese immigrants, to the internment camps and confiscation of assets of the Japanese (but not the Germans). There sure was plenty of discrimination against asians, not to mention plenty of discrimination at the University and school level.

Why can't anyone just admit that this policy of discrimination from Harvard is just a longterm continuation (not a reparation) of the discrimination that asians faced in the past (and it has nothing to do with black people, since black people's test scores are not even mentioned in the lawsuit at all).

In fact, the very same language used against asians is also constantly used against black people. Not long ago, white people used to complain about the invasions of black people into their neighborhoods and into their schools. In the 1920s, it was the invasions of Jews into their schools. Now, the target has shifted once more. It's the invasions of asians into their schools that have white people worry the most about.

You're posting on the wrong thread. The main story is about asians, being discriminated against, for racism that they had nothing to do with.

No. Affirmative action is racist, not because it's trying to protect black students, but it's because it's protecting the status quo and the racism that occurred in the past.

If we were really trying to fix things, the answer would be super simple. We know the people who benefited from racism in the past. Their names and their pictures are already published in the old Harvard year books. The answer is as simple as that. The children of Alumni, and their children's children's shouldn't be allowed to attend Harvard again. And those spots should be reallocated to blacks students.

Instead, Affirmative Action targets the children of immigrants, the outsiders, and the people who look different. In other words, it's targeting the very people that have absolutely nothing to do with the racism of the past.

Racism 2.0. That's what Affirmative Action really is. It's really about protecting the people and the families who benefited the most from racism in the past.

I don't know. What Roberts did sounds pretty reasonable to me.

If you ask me, it's the FBI that sounds completely insane.

And if your argument is that the FBI is perfectly sane and rational, your argument sucks.

And the said can be said for Asian students or Jewish students.

Harvard historically discriminated against them too.

Also, I suppose that GSM carriers with mostly prepaid accounts don't have as much as an incentive to block apps on Google Play since it's so easy for consumers to leave them if they do.

But note that Google doesn't even take a stand on this. It will side with the carrier if it chooses to block apps on Google Play. And it will side with the consumer if the consumer decides to remove the sim card from their device.

One thing is clear however, it is that Google doesn't want to upset carriers (at least, that must have been the policy at the time that article was written three years ago. Obviously, as Android has been increasing its marketshare, its negotiating power has been constantly increasing as well, and it could suddenly turn around and decide to do everything different one day).

This is true enough if you're using a wifi-only tablet. On Google Play, it says "No Carrier -" plus the model name of my tablet. That being said, I have many phones, many of them unlocked, I can tell you for a fact that Google Play (even the web version) knows what is the last carrier I was using with each phone. I can show you a screenshot if you want.

Also here is an old article. I say "old" because my carrier US T-Mobile no longer does this for any phone, even locked ones, but for a time, Google Play used to filter tethering apps from its app store search results (based on the request of carriers). And Google Play did this filtering even with unlocked GSM phones as evidenced by the quote below.

Obviously, that didn't prevent me from downloading an app from a web site instead, which is what I ended up doing anyway, but I'm quoting that paragraph only to prove the point that carriers, even GSM and prepaid carriers, do have more influence than you think over Google Play (it's just that they don't exercise that option as much as they could, simply because they're getting a cut from Google Play).

I agree. It's a tough pill to swallow, but equally tough to swallow would be how Google convinced all the carriers (even the carriers at the lower end of the market) to give up on their super lucrative and purposefully crippled ringtone/wallpaper/J2ME app stores in favor of Android phones.

And by the way, this strategy from Google just didn't come out of thin air. There are online videos of Google executives talking about this problem with carriers very early on during the Barcelona GSMA World Mobile Congress. For instance, Google noticed that more than 50% of searches on Google originating from South Africa and Indonesia were actually coming from mobile phones (instead of computers).

And they made some future projections and did the math, and they knew full well that being allowed to advertise on mobile phones wasn't just going to be an extra-curricular hobby for them, but a matter of longterm corporate survival. At least, that's what you'll get out of watching those early speeches, because it is true that they do not get into the specifics of how they were going to convince the carriers.

Here is the exact wording used from the Android Google Play developer console. The emphasis in bold is mine.

It doesn't say "goes to Google". You're the one who conjured up that wording.

In fact when carrier billing is involved, the full amount doesn't even go to Google first, it can first go to the carriers, which then return the 70% commission back to Google for the app developers.

In any case, please note that this text you selected was not the original source for my information. I'm just clarifying it because you're the one who brought it up and contaminated it with your assumptions.

I'm not guessing. I'm just repeating what I've heard.

If someone is violating an NDA, it's not me. I would never do that, even under a pseudonym. I've sourced this information from multiple people (granted, that information is several years old, so things may have changed, I don't know), but at the time even they didn't tell me this was private information (although in hindsight, it may make sense that it could be).

Thanks to me anyway, a television satellite network even abandoned its plans to develop its own proprietary Google TV alternative. So it's not like this information is working against Google.