And the always have been IMHO - when ever there is a platform with a majority market share then the de facto standard is always going to be whatever that platform supports.Back when IE had overwhelming market share in the desktop people could cry all they like about how their code was "standards compliant" but if it didn't work for the vast majority of visitors then it was essentially broken and the devs were just wasting their time. Other browser vendors can either support what the majority holder is doing or accept that some sites won't work quite right and I don't see that has changed in anyway - just because it's the other way around now doesn't alter anything.

I'm really not a fan of ISPs doing mass data retention but I'm not sure that going around endangering customers privacy is the best way of getting ISPs to respect people's privacy.

The problem really is that Anonymous only really has two tools at it's disposal for dealing with people and organisations they don't like - data grab 'n' release and DoS. And you know what they say about when the only thing you've got is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail...

"I don't get all the people rushing to hack these to run Android, quite frankly? webOS is far more enjoyable to work with for a tablet than any of the Android tablets I've seen. Android feels like it was "made for a phone, but shoehorned onto a tablet"."

I couldn't agree more... I bought mine for relatively cheap during the firesale with the thought that I'd probably just stick Android on it and it would be a cheap way to get better hardware than most of the cheap 'droid slabs that are kicking around, a few days into using WebOS though that idea just dissolved - it's so much slicker than and Android tablet I'd ever used before and I find that it suits my way of thinking much better than iOS as well. The lack of apps hasn't been a problem for me as so far it's only taken one WebOS update and three 3rd-party apps for me to get all the functionality I need.

WebOS certainly isn't perfect and neither is the hardware but then nothing is and since it's managed to go from an impulse buy to an essential daily device for me I'd say I can't really complain.

Something tells me that if HP announced that they weren't going to open source WebOS and instead were going to kill it for example there would be much wailing and nashing of teeth on Slashdot crying "Why don't they just open source it?"

Some people just like complaining.

Maybe because some of us just want to Get The Job Done(TM) and couldn't give two shits about all the political bollocks

I didn't say anything about whether the hate was justifiable or not - in fact I didn't express an opinion of the quality of any browser. But don't let what I actually wrote have any bearing on your frothy-mouthed ranting :)

Really?

"A non-free program is a system of unjust power and shouldn't exist. The existence and use of non-free software [which] is a social problem. It's an evil. And our aim is a world without that problem.'"

Sounds pretty clear to me (taken from TFA) Stallman appears to be (continuing) to bang on that any non-"free" (under his definition) software is inherently wrong. At the moment I have the freedom to choose to make my software non-"free" and users have the freedom to use my software or not, RMS has the freedom to have his own opinions and to use whatever software/devices he chooses - I wouldn't want to take that choice away from him yet it appears he won't be happy untill he has taken mine from me. Who's the more oppressive?

.. but I'm kind of expecting Stallman to eventually be found in a darkend room with both himself and the walls shrouded in tinfoil. The man is definately crossing the line into frothing lunatic.

RMS only believes in a very specific view of "freedom" - his own. What about my "freedom" as a developer to choose the license model for my software or my "freedom" as a software consumer to choose which software I get?

People who hate IE currently will still hate it (for some its almost a religion - IE could give them free money and they would still hate it), those who like it will probably still like it (having used some of the Betas I can't see anything that would piss off an existing user). There will still be lots of frothy-mouthed ranting on the internet and those of us who really don't give a shit about who uses what browser will still just pick the one we like and get on with our lives.

I'm no fan of the extremes that Apple take their control of the app store to - but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons and app should be banned and this is most definitely one of them.

As a general rule I've found Google's stance on privacy of users data to be pretty poor so on this one I say Bravo Google! It would be interesting to see if what (if any) steps they take to protect the platform as a whole from things like this, after all the app store isn't the only way software can be installed on an Android device.

I know the US is the litigation capital of the world and based on the information I've seen it sounds like they are mainly right in their arguments but I'm not sure what they hope to gain by suing, companies make products all the time that fail to be "fit for purpose" but unless you've actually sustained damages or injuries as a result (Think Toyota with stuck throttle type failure) then there isn't really any need to sue - personally if it was me I wouldn't have bothered suing as I would just have returned the phone - probably stamping my feet enough to get rid of any "re-stocking fee" in the process and then I'd go buy something better. Maybe they are just band-wagon jumping to try and get some cash in their pocket. To be fair I don't really know how the legislation works in the States for this sort of thing though!

While you come across as a reasonable guy who not doubt had good intentions trying to put the onus on SCEE to "play nice" as you put it doesn't really wash. After all the responsibility was on you to "play nice" and establish permission to use the name etc. first before you submitted the game to the app stores. FWIW I think you might have had a better chance of getting permission had you asked before you took so to speak.

Saying that you tried back in 2001 doesn't really work either since for a kick off that was 9 years ago and even if you weren't sure who owned it there surely was never a doubt that somebody did. It's like milk in a fridge, just because you aren't sure who it belongs to doesn't mean its OK to use it!

remember: manners are free but lawyers are expensive!

Only if your company is Microsoft :)

this, and this from TFA:

are quite scary really. Are Google honestly claiming that the whole thing is (and will remain) completely invulnerable to any attacks? And people are believing this? Yeah.... Good luck with that.

I'm not denying that it will probably be fairly secure out of the box - after all the less functionality something offers the easier it is to secure, but to claim "complete security" is just foolish.

Sounds like a fairly straight forward case of there being a few dodgy units out there to me - not exactly the biggest surprise when you consider the number of units produced and the short development/testing cycles people have to get new gadgets out these days. Apple aren't the only ones this sort of thing has happened to and they certainly won't be the last.

Watching all the fanbois go up in flames (bah-dum-tish) was however pure internet entertainment!

"nuh-huh didn't happen!"

"they are using it wrong"

"its normal!! laptops can browse the internet and gets hot - the iphone can browse the internet and gets hot. Same thing innit?"

"it's cos of the mega-fast hardware - it just shows how awesome it is"

"YOU'RE ALL JEALOUS!!"

As I expect there will be some of the same along here shortly I'll grab some popcorn :)