Hmm... portable in the broadest sense of the term, perhaps. Can't imagine getting in a quick game of toleroboxer while on the bus.

Excuse me sir, I think you mispelled windo... oh, wait.. hold on.... Oh, wait..

Oh I get it! Instead of spelling "windows" correctly, you instead spelled it "winhoze" which at first seems incorrect but then you realize it is actually a cross between "windows" and "hose". Because hoses indicate that windows is bad, somehow. That is so funny!!! But then you took it to the next level by spelling "hose" with a 'Z' instead of the more typical 'S'. OH MY GOD THAT HAS GOT TO BE THE FUNNIEST THING I HAVE EVER READ IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!! I AM GOING TO KILL MYSELF RIGHT NOW FOR I KNOW THAT I WILL NEVER AGAIN EXPERIENCE THE UNBRIDLED COMEDIC GENIUS OF WHAT YOU HAVE JUST WRITTEN SIR!!!

that there will be a niche for a Windoze only browser with

HOLY SHIT YOU DID IT AGAIN!!! HOW DID YOU DO THAT!?!?! DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE BEING SO FUNNY RIGHT NOW!!! AND YET YOU SPELLED IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BUT THIS TIME YOU COMBINED IT WITH "DOZE" INSTEAD OF "HOSE" OH MY GOD!!!!! I AM SO GLAD THAT I PUSSIED OUT AND DID NOT KILL MYSELF FIFTEEN SECONDS AGO BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE TOTALLY MISSED LIGHTNING STRIKING TWICE ON THE INTERNET!!

Well, with George Broussard off the project this thing finally has a chance. The Wired piece on him was pretty damning -- every time he saw a shiny object he demanded that it be added to DNF. The failure of Duke Nukem Forever lies squarely at his feet.

Wish I had mod points left. The truth is that J2ME did more damage to java portability than Google ever could. They should be thanking Google for keeping Java relevant.

I think Google should say, "You know what? our bad. We'll use another language to compile to Dalvik instead like Go or C#" and watch the smug look on Larry's face as it melts away into horror -- knowing that he just pissed away the only successful successful java implementation on in the mobile space.

Hmmm... that's a good point that I hadn't considered. I haven't seen too many flash intranet apps but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a growing market for silverlight in that arena.

I don't really take issue with the scores they gave, per se.

They weight importance of "Developer Tools" w/ 30% and "Client Support" w/ 20%, an interesting editorial choice because nobody chooses to create flash content flash because of how easy it is; peoile choose the format based on market penetration. Adobe could mandate punch cards for the development environment and people would *still* choose it over Silverlight because thats where the audience is. A more accurate weight for client support would be like 95% at least.

Of course I'm a curmudgeon, and the choice of "flash" vs. "silverlight" is right up there with asking me which finger would I like to chop off.

That'd be awesome. We could put it next to our food replicators.

I heartily agree.

Sent from my jailbroken iPhone

That's an interesting story, thanks. I've only run into that problem a couple times, but you certainly have more datapoints than I do (thankfully i haven't had to reset all my passwords... yet). Since most sites simply hash your password I'm surprised they care about it being too long.

Works great for Windows though. Ever since I adopted this method I haven't forgotten my password after coming back from vacations ;-)

A fair point, but doesn't that also apply for the long, cryptic passwords we typically recommend?

Why not use a system of using simple phrases, including spaces and punctuation. Most systems allow that sort of thing. So the password "I love stinky cheese!" (including spaces and exclamation) is good for two reasons:

• It's easy to remember (it's 21 characters but you only have to remember four words)
• It's easy to type
• It's extremely secure (it would take ages to bruteforce, even with a dictionary attack

That said, I agree with the parent post: many times writing a password down is actually a good idea.

Gizmodo is a third party, and they have been pretty consistent in reporting on both points of view on this issue.

Actually Gizmodo may have an axe to grind, too. And the difference in reporting w.r.t. Apple since the "lost iphone" debacle is pronounced.

It's far from harmless fun. You could be seriously injured or killed with one of these things. This kid got off lucky. That said, I think this story hinges on the details (and the article provides few). If the kid was trying to harm others then the police should have gotten involved, but if he was just setting them off in the back yard then it's a different story.

Does anybody remember Air Jammer's? Basically it a car that used compressed air to power a little engine (similar to a steam-powered engine, but with no steam). Anyway, I replaced the air tank with coca-cola bottle, ran the air tube through a small hole in the lid, and filled it w/ dry ice and a little water. It worked better than I could have imagined... until I got overzealous with the dry ice/water amounts.

Sometimes I think I would hate to be a kid growing up today. Technology is much more advanced than 30 years ago but kids have far less freedom. Even walking around and exploring is something we as a society think kids shouldn't be allowed to do.

I think most people would agree with you in the abstract, but keep in mind that the majority of mobile phone owners don't even know that such a thing is even possible. We know better so we use passwords. The thing is, AT&T also knows better, and they have the ability to mitigate the risk, but are doing nothing. Shouldn't they be held at least partially responsible?

I agree that it's not Google's fault, but I think the point is that Android lowers the bar for someone attempting this. Configuring asterisk to spoof caller ID and retrieving voicemail is possible, but relatively few have the proficiency to do this. Any idiot can buy an Android phone.