Which is why Google _don't_ call it a java platform. It's dalvik, it runs dalvik bytecode on a dalvik VM. You can write in any high level language you like as long as you have a compiler that results in dalvik bytecode.
As a convenience, Google provide a java->dalvik bytecode compiler, which is nice of them, but they don't ship a JVM nor a java system.
Android 2.2 has tethering built in so, you can:
1) wait for 2.2
2) buy "Pdanet" from the market
3) Root your device and void your warranty
4) Write an app yourself
On the iphone you can
1) Jailbreak your phone remembering apple claims this is illegal
_That_ is why android is more open.
Now _within_ the Andoid ecosystem there are more and less open phones (it's worse for you poor sods in the US, but that because telco's pay their way out of needed regulation)
If you got a Nexus1 then rooting is available with google supported tools (you still void your software warranty though) if you get HTC branded phone it's harder and Moto are really pissy about that sort of thing.
A friend of mine said it best:
"The iPhone encourages you to be a consumer
Android encourages you to be a creator"
* Wireless and USB tethering.
* CIFS mount,
* Bluetooth HID keyboard demon (with some fiddling)
* Extra 200+MB memory (Due to a kernel problem in the stock rom the N1 can only use half it's memory).
* Use of the LED flash as a torch, ability to use coloured notification lights in the trackball
* Ability to screenshot any app without using the SDK
* 360deg screen rotation
Those are the things that I unlocked my N1's bootloader for
No its fine.
Theft: The act of depriving another...
Theft of property:
Theft of service:
Copyright Infringement _removes nothing_ is is simply a breach of the covenant of copyright that many governments have established, it was established, in part, because the rules of theft _made no sense_ when applied to a body of work that could be duplicated with minimal effort.
It is different and it is not theft/stealing/piracy in anything but inaccurate colloquial parlance.
That _does not_ mean you get free reign to ignore it the same way that speeding is also not theft, but it can still get you fined and/or get your licence removed _when proven in a court of law_
And that's called fraud, the is no offence of "identity theft" its another colloquial term that has no baring on the actual offence
ASCAP are trying to push just that sort or nonsense. Thankfully they got a bloody nose trying it, but it's indicative of the way they think:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/court-rules-phones-ringing-public-dont-infringe-co
I'd go so far as to say its "Building part of your chicken-enclosure out of foxes, that have promised to stay still"
The gate is one way after its dialed, and transports contiguous lumps of matter, it normally waits until one item is completely in its "buffer" before sending it. I guess you could say the stream is gas-delimited. If they had canisters it would work fine (did they have canisters, could they dial back? I haven't seen it yet)
Current UK standard, why you mention BS 546 and not BS 1363 is beyond me. Tsk.
No, the GP isn't right.
A computer is a multi-function device its strength is that it can attempt most task. A car is a mono-function device. If you want people to have safe malware-free devices you need to convince them to buy an Email appliance, Web browsing appliance, Movie-playing appliance, Desktop-publishing appliance, etc etc. Then there is a possibility (after the market matures) that these can be secure by-design. But people don't want that, they want a machine that is cheap and does everything, except the things that they don't want it to do, and they want the machine to know the difference even if they don't.
And that? that will never happen IMHO.
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
