Yup. It's sure the first result on Yahoo. Of course, the last update prior to yesterday that I can find has approximately nothing to do with this "Android Data" thing.

A bit more research, and you'll find: The site was last updated yesterday. The content that was there at it's last indexing on Google and MSN is the same as what is currently up at www.pushpuppets.net. As well, android-data.com (the actual domain for the "product") was registered on 2009/04/20; it's been around for a grand total of 12 days. The site that was there before, according to archive.org: it's a parking page for someone else operating a business by the name of "Android Data Services", though checking androiddata.com on archive.org gets you the same site: defunct since 2006, with it's last update being 2003/01/23. Searching for android-data.com gets you no site whatsoever, on Google, Yahoo, or MSN.

This reads to me as though truth is more idiotic than fiction. Nefarious is more likely the case: everything I've been able to tell suggests that the name and product have been dead for at least 3 years, if not more likely 6 years. Looks more like a case of "I might be able to sue Google for lots of money" than anything. The likelihood of actually winning any lawsuit there, suing over a product that nobody has ever heard of, on a trademark that nobody has ever heard of (until today)... um, right. Maybe if he were actually developing & promoting that product, then he'd have something to say.

Hm. Well, methane will generate CO2 as it's end result, whether it's used for power or not - it undergoes an oxidation reaction over time: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O. It's also 75 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and as it decomposes to CO2 anyway, net output of CO2 from burning methane from such sources as cow dung is nil.

Wind, solar, and hydrogen all have their issues: wind and solar are unreliable over time, because they both ultimately depend on the weather conditions, and hydrogen isn't an energy source. Free H2 uses a lot of energy to obtain, unless it's obtained from fossil fuels, which, while potentially better for the environment, still leaves us with a non-renewable resource.

Hm. I've got Clear in Portland; I'm in 97239, for what it's worth. They might not advertise it as being available - the primary reason that I've been able to tell is because the signal strength / quality isn't anything great. It's certainly enough to get the job done - once the equipment is placed in a good spot, I still get 5.5Mbit, but in a bad spot (which can be as little as a few inches from the good spot: at least I have ziploc bags and tape, since it's taped to the end of my balcony right now) I'll be lucky to get dialup speeds.