Considering how many of those horrible time travel episodes they did, we probably already have.

"Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing...block it out!" - Montgomery Burns

I think in the net scheme of things, it is less of an infringement on human freedom to regulate what can be sold as a toy than it is to set up an apparatus that intervenes when parents don't distinguish which things marketed as toys really are toys for kids and which ones aren't, and then removes children from the families that don't, and then raises those children elsewhere under government oversight.

A lot of kids don't have a stay-at-home parent, and are stuck in crappy day-cares run by people who don't care, but are that can be afforded on the low wages that are available for them.

I hear a lot of sanctimonious claims about "lazy parents" and "bad parents" from people who either aren't parents, or who have a partner acting as a stay-at-home parent (the stay-at-home parents themselves don't make these claims too often.) Which are you?

I think the real solution is going to be through Google+ - you already have the option to share a video on Google+, but the next step is that, by default, the comments you make on a video will only be seen by those in the Circle you shared it to, and the author of the video. "Public" comments would be invisible by default.

I actually want to use Chrome, and I'd like to use Google Now. I also understand that there are performance and stability issues that were addressed post ICS. That's my main issue. I haven't found anything more than hopeful thinking about ICS being in the queue for G2: do you have a link?

And so does Dolphin HD and thousands of other apps. But my point stands.

I think this is the case, and the best-case scenario for Google: that Nexus branding become something OEMs clamor for, and fall over themselves to get.

This will backfire if Google gets lax about control of the user experience and update cycle in order to keep OEMs happy. Google needs to crack the whip a bit here. Unsubsidized phones, by their very nature, will keep the carriers in line, when they're going to be struggling to keep customers happy month after month, instead of coasting on contracts.

"Android" understood as a whole includes the carriers and manufacturers - when you choose which phone to buy, you're also choosing the ecosystem. It's not a problem of the operating system's technology itself, but no one is seriously claiming it is.

Google needs to be more aggressive in finding ways to own the experience better. It's already heading in the right direction: Nexus started off more as a developer's phone and reference model, and is turning into a kind of cattle-prod to other manufacturers. Google's ownership of Motorola also helps. Perhaps the "openness" of the first few years of Android, and the resultant fragmentation, was a bit of a honeypot, enticing manufacturers to build products for that ecosystem. But it's time (without, of course, withdrawing the source code from the public) to tighten control of the user's total ownership experience. Including updates.

I can't run Google Now or Chrome on my G2, because it's stuck at Gingerbread (and I don't have the time or inclination to root it.).

Fragmentation is a problem. In the future, I'm going to stick to Nexus products, but the Android ecosystem (by which I mean "all the phones which use Google Play to buy and download apps") is bigger than, and not driven by, the Nexus line.

They are definitely fiction. Just not Hollywood-style fictions or cinematic ones.

Romeo and Frittata, as it were.

Yet Scotland has its own parliament and a national football (soccer) team. Scotland is generally considered a country that is part of the United Kingdom.

Not one to cite wikipedia as a source, but it treats the constituent nations of the United Kingdom as countries that are all part of the same state, which is also a country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom.

Maybe they're like intestinal fauna.

Again, no, it isn't. Monogamous marriages were a secular Roman practice (most societies before that were polygamous.) The Catholic church may have interpreted some scripture to turn a civil practice into a sacrament, but the civil practice preceded it historically and structurally.

The etymology of "marriage" is from the Latin "maritare."

Thank you for clearing this up. The original article needs to be updated.