Okay, let me put it another way. If the model Google was using wasn't broken, and not a practical for security purposes in the real world, then why did they change their design to allow them to update core elements without having to wait for vendors to update their modified versions?

Google's actions make it clear that their design didn't support the business model they promoted.

In my Firefox install, I have the best of both worlds, assuming you know much about computers. I press the Alt key, all my pull-down menus appear. A couple clicks to do whatever I want. Which just happens to be what Windows Explorer does, as well. Consistent interface, no wasted space, and even the useless stuff is an instant away.

Sure, when you're browsing the web, more screen being used for the pages is good. But don't waste my time by forcing me to use your special interface. I'll lose far more having to learn yet another non-standard interface than I will by losing a 1 cm row of screen space.

Except for the part where MS has years where they provide security fixes for a given point release. And MS doesn't stop support for hardware in just a couple years. And your vendor doesn't block you from upgrading to a new point release.

But yes, except for all that, what have the Romans done for us?

With respect to the carriers, Google is in a very similar position as Apple. If Apple can do it, there's no reason that Google can't do it. And if Apple can get the carriers to do it, Google could if they tried, too.

Now, I understand there are a few key differences between Apple and Google, two of the most important being that Google isn't the manufacturer and, related to that, that different manufacturers add their own look and feel to Android. But that's a strong indicator that Google needs to change their methodology, to help decouple the OS from the UI. Apparently they've already started this, by bumping OS features into Google Play (which may also be a poor choice), but this only means they're leaving older versions out in the cold.

I use GMail, have an android phone, and use a number of other services that google provides, but they desperately need to get out of the web mindset. Deployment plans that work for a web page don't really work well for an OS, having products in multi-year beta modes, and abruptly dropping support for services are all very upsetting practices that don't work if you want to be integral to people's daily lives.

No, and that's a wonderful edge case. But, and this is a very big but, Windows 7 came out in 2009, 5 years before support for XP was ended. I don't think very many people were buying WinXP computers in 2012. And we're not even talking about windows Vista (which is as it should be).

Do you think this looks better for Google when I point out that first, just about any computer would support SP 1 to 3 for free (and usually requires the same or lower specs), or, more importantly, that SP3 still came out 6 years before support was ended?

I dream of a world where a law was passed that if a service is used by more than 2/3 of the people, and there is only one provider, it is classified as a utility and regulated under the utility rules. "Oh, you don't want competition? Well, then, here's how much you can charge per month. And don't bother asking if you can raise your prices until next year."

Two key differences. First, XP came out in 2001. Second, XP support ended last year. But to be fair, I'd be happy if Google would support their OS for even half that long. So, where is that support for Android 1.1?

Realistically, support should last at least as long as the longest contract in the countries their product is used in. If you went with the standard of a 3-year contract (I think there are 4-year contracts, but I'm certain my carrier has 3-year contracts), that would still leave the later releases of Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0) under support. Face it, their Android OS support is abysmal.

This is the single best argument I've seen so far for wireless video. You could conceivably use it without any wires at all attached (especially with a wireless keyboard). And if you needed USB peripherals, you could just connect it to a hub and be up to one wire, just like a regular wired mouse. It doesn't mention having bluetooth, but it's certainly a good candidate for it (or a really small bluetooth dongle).

This needs to be coupled with highly portable displays.

Flawed thinking. Why should they have been replaced, if they were meeting all the user's needs, were functioning correctly, and were able to run supported software? For a few percentile performance boost where the majority of time the user is the primary bottleneck? Which is why they weren't replaced, until they should have been (or shortly after).

I also have no problem with pure fun. I don't require chemicals to achieve it, and don't as a general rule frown upon other people doing so - it's their lives and bodies. It doesn't upset me that I don't find the effects of alcohol interesting, although I've had a few on occasion, and it does concern me when people I know can't handle their drug of choice. But this particular one has a real dangerous potential. Single up-front cost, multiple settings, etc. I can see where those who tend towards addiction would have a strong tendency to keep turning up the intensity and get to the state of wireheads in Niven's work. My solution is to let other people test it out and discover the possible negative side effects. As for the benefits, I'm old enough where the big everyday benefits aren't going to have a huge impact on my life, not unlike laser vision correction, but hopefully my children will be able to blast through university with a deeper understanding and less study thanks to tools such as these. Perhaps by that time they'll also have methods of determining safe limits, and my kids will be able to enjoy the synthetic pleasure such tools could provide with no downside.

Or you could use it for other things. For instance, improve your focus so you can work better. Or improve your capacity to learn so that you can spend less time in school to achieve the same results. Or learn more.

Some of us aren't so tied to stimulating our pleasure centers that we don't do anything else. Note the many people who aren't addicted to cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs, for instance. These are already simple methods to stimulate your pleasure centers (and other areas) with, frankly, the same potential drawbacks as your average Niven-esque wirehead. Sure, addictiveness may be lower, but that's already the reason I stay away from things like heroin, opium, and meth.

This would actually be a pretty trivial experiment to conduct. Survey of men who had circumcisions after becoming sexually active, and rate their opinion of the sexual experience before and after the surgery. Granted, there will have to be a number of factors to take into consideration, such as personal perception of self image before and after surgery, etc.

Last time I checked (and it's been over 10 years), about 1% of men require circumcision in adulthood for medical reasons. If even 1% of them were sexually active before the surgery, there would be more than enough candidates to do a useful study.

The key flaw with your point, with respect to this study, is that it doesn't match the results, at all. Fewer males were born, but their survival rates were higher, leading to similar sexes ratios as in less stressful times. So not only does the study not agree with your statement, it seems that selective pressure still favors an even mix of the two sexes.

Similarly, a study of World War II mothers in Denmark, I believe, found that not just their children, but their grandchildren had lower birth weights. This was attributed to the famine caused by the war (i.e., the invading soldiers had plenty to eat, the local citizens, not so much), but it was surprising that the effects were also felt in the next generation. Things that you wouldn't think have a connection to the fetus really can, sometimes even for multiple generations.