CR-48, Chrome OS 0.9.128.12: 4416

You realize the host CPU (x86, ARM, POWER, etc - the one that gets all the press) isn't the only microprocessor in the system - many of these binary blobs run on other microprocessors and don't need to be recompiled for different host architectures. In a given system, there are usually several other processors that handle various, often real-time, functions. It is common for these devices to lack non-volatile storage and must boot from their host (the CPU) which is why these blobs are needed.

For example, your wireless adapter probably contains its own microprocessor whose firmware must be loaded by the host CPU during system initialization.

That isn't to say vendors aren't releasing the source for their kernel drivers that interfaces with these devices - they are, and generally have been for sometime. I think this has more to do with the magic doesn't usually happen in these drivers anyway as they only provide an interface to an external device. At the same time, releasing the kernel driver source code and providing free examples of using their devices is a good marketing tool - I'm more likely to go with a vendor who makes my life easy and lets me see how to implement their devices without getting the lawyers involved. Now, the firmware that runs on these devices is what is worth protecting, and, from my experience, is still largely closed and protected by NDAs.

I should also point out that many such devices are really just consumer friendly implementations produced by Company X of a product developed by Company Y. Company Y usually makes the firmware, and may or may not make the drivers, but it is up to Company X to package it all together and sell it to you, the consumer. Company X may want to GPL the drivers, but it is up to Company Y to GPL the firmware.

Who's complaining? Who are these 'people'? /.ers? Obviously not your average computer user seeing as after a decade of Windows tablets, Apple steals the whole market with the iPad and its 'segragated' OS. And remember, these same 'people' said no one would buy an iPad.

Don't get me wrong, as a geek, I agree with you and see your points, but for the average user, it misses the target.

Furthermore, ChromeOS is just a Linux distro that uses a web browser as the window manager. It delivers the same web as any other machine, but without the extra fluff that gets Joe Sixpack in trouble. There's nothing particularly different or magical about it, and no one is suggesting that. The only thing new here is Google is providing an entire vertically integrated solution to the average Joe. This is where all the other solutions you've suggested fail.

You are being disingenuous if you're trying to compare web apps to terminal services like SSH, VNC, etc. Have you ever tried to use these over the Internet? Not a user friendly experience to say the least.

Again, you're clearly looking at this from the geek's perspective based on technological merits and not from the perspective of the average user. This is a common mistake in the tech world, and probably one of the greatest challenges in delivering a widely accepted product.

ChromeOS isn't targeted to the average /.er - it's targeted to the average computer user. You know, the ones that call you to come fix their computer because they click yes to every question that pops up while surfing the interwebs? Most people really only need the internet and have no use for native apps - or at least really shouldn't be installing native apps. Honestly, I would recommend a product like ChromeOS to at least 3/4 of the non-techy people I know as I don't think a full-blown OS suits their use case well.

Secondly, saying ChromeOS and Android fit the same market is really, really dumb and misses the point completely. One is intended for the touchscreen only, while the other is geared for the traditional mouse and keyboard. These are significantly different UI approaches, targeting significantly different markets, and require more than just simple patching and hacking to go from one to the other. Even patching the OS's UI elements leaves all of the 3rd party applications with a disarray of usability between types of UI. Just look at Windows on the tablet as an example.

It's strange that no one seems to complain about Apple using iOS on its mobile devices, while using OS X on its computers, or that Microsoft uses Windows 7 on the computer and Windows Phone 7 on mobile devices. Instead, this is clearly the preferred approach. Yeah, Google is going the opposite direction, but I think it still applies - you are going between two radically different use cases and trying to go with a one-size-fits-all approach usually yields a one-size-sucks-for-all result. Granted, I'm sure we'll see a gradual merging of the code bases between ChromeOS and Android, but for either to remain a usable product, they need to be tailored for their specific uses.

Actually, it talks about transistor density per unit cost - as long as manufacturing continues to improve and drive down costs, Moore's law will continue beyond the physical limitations of transistor density (stuff will continue to get cheaper even if it doesn't get 'faster').

I don't understand why most people focus on the maximizing transistor density part when 99% of applications call for minimizing cost.

7-1? Citation please. Doing a quick Google search shows the opposite to be true (Democrats outspent Republicans overall), but not by anywhere near that level.

Please, Russ Feingold is the epidemy of a career politician. Of course he's non-partisan - he went with whatever serves him and his career the best - just like McCain who co-sponsored that horrible 'campaign finance reform' bill. That's why he was voted out - people are tired of being fed lip service by these scum bags on both sides of the isle.

Could you please explain to me how the law struck down in the CU decision is anything but censorship? So now, for the first time in about a decade, people other than the political parties and the government approved media can support a candidate before an election. How is that a bad thing? That the ACLU, NRA, NAACP, AARP, etc can actually voice the opinion of their members before an election is great. Or you'd rather only be allowed to hear what the Republicans, Democrats, CNN, Fox News, etc have to say? Or are you seriously going to argue that the voice of an individual means more than jack shit in a democratic republic of ~300 million people and we don't need to form groups to get our messages across? The campaign reform act had nothing to do with keeping out special interests, and everything to do with protecting the establishment. Please lay off the kool-aid - censorship is always bad, regardless of who you're censoring.

And contrary to what Predsident Obama says, these private corporations were allowed to spend all they wanted before this law was passed in 2002. About half of the states have also always allowed it in state and local elections. Amazingly, we got this far without the restriction, and it seems the power of special interests has only increased under its influence. (Not saying it is at fault, just that it doesn't actually do what it's marketed to do)

Furthermore, even with the law on the books, it only had the affect of raising the price of admission on political speech - those big evil corporations you're so afraid of could easily afford to set up PACs to work around the law, while non-profits that depend on small contributions from the People were shut out.

Oh, and there is no "conservative majority" in the SCOTUS. There are 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and Justice Kennedy who is very moderate and often unpredictable. The only amazing thing about the decision is 4 justices actually supported the federal government censoring private parties.

The (hopefully) obvious solution is to abolish the drug prohibition all together. I would bet the total societal cost (in terms of both financial cost and loss of human life and productivity) of the drug war has far exceeded the costs ever possible in a society where all drugs were manufactured and distributed legally. I would also bet cultural pressure to avoid the use of certain kinds of drugs would be far more effective than the current legal pressure to avoid the use of almost all drugs.

They probably should also legalize and regulate prostitution while they're at it.

As others have mentioned, an FPGA would be the way to go. This would also take care of the DMCA issue - some type of open digital video capture project could sell FPGA based capture cards to encode non-HDCP DVI/HDMI video sources, and thus not violate the DMCA. Since the FPGA is easily software upgradeable, the end-user could update it after purchase to also decode HDCP much like how libdvdcss is handled today.

The biggest benefit is not for piracy (99% of pirates wouldn't bother and would just download the content instead) but rather to allow one to capture and encode digital HD video from their cable box for a home media server setup. It's unfortunate that such a practice isn't protected by fair use since it is a perfectly legitimate use case.

The biggest problem with Flash on Android is the lack of FlashBlock - visiting a site with multiple Flash ads is total hell.

Then there's embedded YouTube videos - playing them with Flash sucks compared to using the YouTube app and it seems to force you to watch embedded videos with Flash. I've yet to figure out how to get it to allow me to fall back to the YouTube app.

My solution is to uninstall Flash, and only install it as I really need it. Even then, it's iffy if Flash will work when I need it.

While I wish I could share your optimism, I'm afraid the DC Circuit is fighting the uphill battle on this one. I admit I haven't read much about this decision yet, but my reading about the DC decision made me a bit uneasy.

Unfortunately, police have long been able to watch people in public space without a warrant, and there is significant legal precedent giving them power to do so.

Furthermore, the DC Circuit creates an entirely new test stating that surveillance over any extended period of time is a 4th Amendment search and requires a search warrant. IIRC, their decision was that while a single given action by the police may be legal, a combination of actions are not. This is totally new and unprecedented, and while I agree with it completely, it will be up the the SCOTUS to support this new precedent and make it the law of the land.

Our only hope here may be an action of Congress. That is, of course, unlikely as the political machines and the media have the electorate happily distracted with other, pointless 'hot-button' topics while our rights are slowly eroded away.

Go with a Rigol. I use a low-end 2 channel 100MHz Tek at work, and a 2 channel 100Mhz Rigol at home - I honestly like the Rigol much more, even though it was only a fraction of the cost. I feel with the Teks they try to make it clear that it is a low end scope.

If you have $2k to spend, you can not just get a brand new Rigol scope, but also a good bench-top power supply and perhaps an arbitrary wave form generator - everything the home CE needs to get started.

There are a lot actually, starting with the ACLU and the NRA. The People do lobby congress to great success - they just do it as groups in order to pool resources.

The problem of course is not the lobbying (it is a constitutionally protected right after all), it's the politicians who care more about getting a steak dinner, a Rolex, and a blow job than doing what's best for their constituents and their country.

A 'corporation' is nothing more than a tax definition. When it comes to the rights of the people in a group, it falls under the right to assemble. There is plenty of supreme court precedence making it very clear that people retain their rights as a group - regardless of how their group is defined by tax code.

If you don't like it, you can petition congress to amend the constitution to repeal, or heavily modify, the 1st amendment. Something tells me that won't go over too well with most Americans.

So you also agree that corporations like the ACLU and the NRA should not be allowed to speak? We should all be required to fight for our rights as individuals?

No, corporations being allowed to lobby is not the problem - corrupt, scum bag politicians who lie to their voters and side with whoever gives them the most blow jobs are the problem. The problem is we live in a society where private businesses need to pull this crap to stay competitive because that's just how the game is played. Maybe if the people we elected actually cared about those who elected them, this wouldn't be an issue.

Any American gun owner can tell you that tritium is NOT banned in the US - tritium makes for great night sights and is a common addition for home defense weapons.