"Shouldn't Palm at least be checking to see if the apps are malware?" maybe if they had infinite time and money.
A better solution would be to let us do it, the public will be better and quicker at judging apps than any offical body. All Palm need to do is provide a decent robust feedback system, and a support process for cases where the app causes damage.

The original problem with Android was the HTC hardware. It was severly lacking esp when compared to the iPhone, Pre and Symbian S60 devices. Slow processors with not enough memory, same as their Windows Mobile phones.

Take the Hero, good build quality, fancy and polished GUI, but not enough memory to use those 7 'desktops' with the widgets that they advertise!

I think Android really needs a Arm Cortex 8 based phone with a decent amount of RAM.

The death of cursive can also be attributed to what we are writing. Modern business is full of acronyms, trademarked names derived from various languages, code, formula's etc.

Anybody tried writing pseudo code in cursive?? Imagine reading AnandTech in cursive? It would be a complete mess.

Also who do most people write to? Myself its 100% to myself, as notes.

The core of the problem highlighted by this fiasco is not that a company can take away what you paid for in good faith. It's that a company that has a business model around distributing copyrighted works can't even work out who owns the copyrights!

I mean wtf?
How the hell can the media/entertainment companies go after the public for copyright infringement when they themselves don't have a clue who owns what.

This is issue that the governments need to sort, simplify the ownership of copyright and force any owners to keep acurate records (available to all) about what copyrights they own. Ideally also scrap one piece of work being under multiple copyrights for stupid things like geographic region, and the practise of altering/remarketting a public domain work just so you can claim copyright on the 'new' version.

You forgot to mention that:
You've saved more people than Ghandi, Jesus, USA and the UNSC. You have saved millions more than you killed. You have built hundreds of ecological perfect cities that house thousands. You have helped evolve the human race from primates to space travellers. You have prevented the Earth from being destroyed by aliens, asteroids, gods and your evil twin brother. More than a few times you saved the entire solar system, and once you even saved the entire universe from destruction. You've built roller-coasters, hospitals and entire transport networks. You've read more about ancient history, engineering and advanced physics than anybody. You're worshipped by millions and your choices directly improve the lives of trillions.

What I don't get is that the unlimited internet, is anything but unlimited, its 1/3gb fair use. What f**king difference does it make how I use it?
If I go over because I used my phone as a modem, the carrier/operator is going to charge me more (at stupidly high rates) or disconnect me.

The only plausiable explanation is that even the 'fair use' cap that all the carriers is actually more than they can handle (or their infrastructure is so innefficent that its too expensive for them). So without tethering no-one is likely to hit the 'fair use' cap, cause only the machosist would squint at a phone screen for that long!

Surely, if this filter can find child abuse images so easily, then the authorities can investigate, remove the images and arrest the people involved...then the filter can be turned off?

All that blocking it does is...well...nothing at all. The images and the perpetrators are still around, and no children have been protected.

I just don't understand how Latitude can be considered a privacy danger:

a) YOU have to choose to install Google Maps.
b) YOU have to choose to turn it on.
c) YOU have to choose or accept friend tracking. (and to choose not to delete them)
d) YOU have to choose not to turn it off.

Google have put as many safeguards as is practical while still providing a cool service to those people that want it.

tbh the only real danger to privacy is modern government (esp. here in the UK)

I think games that had an interesting concept but flawed execution should be considered.

Like when Marvel remade the Hulk, that was a good thing, and not something companies should be scared of.

Take the old 'favourite' Diakatana, is the actual concept of an FPS throughout different ages that bad? No I don't think so, its a nice twist on the usual concept. It was utterly flawed and moronically executed the first time around, but a different team could make a decent game out of it.

I also think that people would prefer an 'engine' update rather than a new version of their favourite oldie. Late 80's/Early 90's games would be perfect for this.

mmm, the trouble is your assuming that there is a possibility of a DRM-free entertainment world. Which although that would be ideal, is not going to happen.

So I would prefer a system that at least attempts to be fair.

As for your list:
Yes it needs installing, but also allows easy uninstall, better than every other DRM.
True, but then again it is an option, and doesn't need to run to play the game.
Ad's? The only ad's I see are when you start an unpatched game, and even then they are poor (as in wouldn't convince anybody of anything) advertising for valves own stuff.
Connected to the internet is a problem for mobile gamers, but MS and the other OS's also assume constant online, so can't blame valve there.
Force's updates, that's a good thing...most games are buggy even single player, at least you get a simple to use system (no arsing around with versions, patch levels etc)

10 years down the road, tbh who cares, it will have either been replaced or outdated. Tbh I think it now has enough backers, can't think of many publishers left not on it, that it will survive. Besides no worse or better than any other DRM.

A lot of the posts seem to basically poke fun at the article, as EA haven't removed DRM, just used Steam instead, and then pick holes in Steam.

It's this level of argument that gets us no where. Steam is the type of DRM we should be commending, it does a damn good job of satisfying both sides.
The consumers get an easy to use product, and there no intrusive drm or over the top restrictions.

In the fact its only the right of sale that I think you give up, and yes it would be great if Steam had a built in 'demo' mode so that you could try without paying...that gets around the problem of buying 'blind'. But I think this is a small compromise, esp given the mass of information that is now available to potential customers.

Now if someone could explain why this is North America only? Why the hell would you purposely shrink your potential sales market???