The ipad display was increased exactly by a factor of two to make the scaling of applications easier.

Which is why Google carefully avoids collecting too much power. Your Nexus-device is completely open and free, if Google turns evil you are free to take your device elsewhere. Any other device is beyond your control and can be bricked if Ballmer/Cook are in a bad mood.

What exactly do you want? Those things come with an unlocked boot loader. The complete source of the software is available. Everybody can modify it freely. What else could Google possibly do?

This "it's unsafe" argument always comes from people in need of an excuse for not biking, and because they don't, they have no idea what they are talking about. Of course this argument goes well with most people, because most people are exactly like that: In need of an excuse for not biking. And of course it's always possible to come up with a single tragic example to "proof" that claim. And if none is available it's easy to make one up. And no, hatred and a comment written in a minute are not superior to academic research based on extensive statistics.

Google offers to be your friend, even if you sell competing operating systems like Symbian or WP7. They just don't want to be your friend if you are using their freely and openly provided source as basis to create competition, and that appears reasonable.

Who says Microsoft doesn't spy?

Quite the opposite, M.Z. has out-smarted all the professional investors. They lost. He won. The company (facebook) won.

Ah, sorry, of course my comment referred to NFC, as this is the topic at hand. And this article here in fact says they were not able to exploit NFC on current phones.

Wrong. It's not supposed to be as secure as *possible*, but as secure as *necessary*. And it apparently is: Even the world's leading experts were not able to break into current Android phones.

The most important part is missing from your proposal: What would that standard be?

It is backwards-compatible, so what works today will most likely work tomorrow as well. There is no other way. Maybe stay with HTML 4 until HTML 5 is finished? But of course, it's much easier to whine and complain than coming up with a better proposal.

Calling this "Malware" without further specification is somewhat exaggerated. They do what many other apps do as well: Serve ads. Collect a very limited amount of personal data. That's it. It's annoying, but certainly not damaging.

I wonder why you consider this junk. In general search results should only improve by taking more information into account.

They do not slander anyone here. They just suggest you might want to search for a certain term because other people did so before.

A few obvious mistakes:
- They knew in advance what they wanted to prove, yet created the formal hypothesis only after they got the numbers.
- They tested children here. The most important biological differences develop at a later age, so the results cannot be generalized to adults.
- The title makes it clear this paper is meant to draw attention, but not to publish scientific results.