I think it's hilarious that instead of commenting on the topic you guys chose to argue semantics.

Tell that to Google.
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/usb/adk.html

I'm just annoyed that they have not implemented all of Gingerbread. They claim they have Android 2.3.4 on kernel 2.6.37 and yet they don't support the ADK (accessory development kit). It's just a couple of already written classes in the kernel, a framework jar, and a permissions file. It would take an hour to implement and 3 to test. Hook us up Amazon! Then I wouldn't even want to root the thing.

I'd support a permission for launching intents originating outside this signed package. Starting an Activity, like a new screen in the current app uses the same code as starting the browser or any other activity. If Android is able to tease apart the difference, and I think that would be possible, then that seems reasonable. I have an app that launches a service for listening for an Accessory (ADK) mode device that is outside the original package because ADK requires Android 2.3.4 but the app only requires 2.2. I compiled them separately because of the different kernel requirements but they still talk to one another. While I'd be VERY put off if I could not do this at all, I am ok with documenting it to the user.

The magic is getting the browser to return its data back to the app without privileges. That turns out to not be hard either. I found an example and posted it below. With this, you have a functional two way link from app without privileges to webserver and back. I'm not impressed and I don't consider this an "exploit". If you want a system that allows apps to communicate with each other, which we all do, then you have to be careful of what you install on your phone. This is better than a PC which almost always has full root access. This is just voyeur access...

http://www.android10.org/index.php/forums/49-other-coding-problemsarticles/1575-example-communication-between-an-activity-and-the-browser-callback

What happening here is that the app he installed opens the web browser to when you lock the screen. The app is then, in here in lies the secret sauce, is able to get the commands from the the browser is receiving. The browser part is simple, it can poll looking for input. How the app gets that input is interesting part. I don't know how its doing that. It may have created a callback from the browser to there app. Android has excellent inter process communication tools, but I don't know how he is doing this from an app he doesn't control. I've only thought about it for 5 minutes though. With this app and another app you control, this exploit would be trivial (one with internet access and another with sdcard access for example). I think any app can execute process with would give it access to the shell. That doesn't mean it has root access, but Android will let you view much of the file system without root. You cannot get to private app data storage, but you can see the sdcard and other basic parts of the file system like /framework or /etc.

http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/Parcel.html this shows inter-process communication.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/Intent.html this shows how to launch the browser.

I almost always have WIFI nearby, so its not a daily bother. Once a week though, its pretty darn annoying.

I got the first Nexus S with T-Mobile crystal sets in it but have an ATT sim card. If this comes to pass, I'll finally get 3G in the US (instead of just EDGE). I only get 3G when I'm travelling outside the US now.

Building one for $130 would be easy enough. You would have to pay a monthly for cell service though.
An Arduino, a voltage regulator, a GPS module, and a GSM module would be the essential parts. Stick them in a weatherproof enclosure and conceal it on the scoot. You would be good to go. You would need to write a little code to get it to squawk its location to a webserver somewhere so in case it was stolen you'd know where it was hiding. I'm not sure how much the retail version are but I'd bet they are similarly priced. Economies of scale are a bitch.

I'd mod up your post, but I want to reply instead. Are you suggesting that the display uses 50-100 times the power of an ARM chip (and therefore 5-10 times an x86)? If that is true, that is very interesting. I did not realize the display was such an outlier in power consumption department...

I thought x86 is a power hog compared to ARM. It seems like that is a serious consideration for mobile devices to me. I'll be interested to see where this goes. In the mean time, x86 chips are going to have to get a lot cheaper to compete with ARMs prices.

That rings true to me. I don't know the numbers, but I do know that a lot of software I use is not very thoughtful about using available resources. Until developers or our tools are smarter about using the resources on the target devices we will continue to see disappointing performance numbers. We've been spoiled by Intel for a long time now. I think its our turn to start writing better software because Intel isn't saving our bacon anymore.

GWT is only the front end. I use Glassfish for the back end of websites. That is just J2EE stuff so it's not nearly as slow as GWT though it does only use one core. In essence I already am doing as you suggest.

As a developer and not a gamer or video maker I stand by my original complaint. These multi-core processors have been a step in the wrong direction for me from a performance standpoint. Some of us would benefit from 4 cores that packed as much punch (whatever that really means) as the the 8 cores we can buy. I really do appreciate that my OS doesn't lock up anymore when it's working hard. I just get annoyed when I'm waiting and waiting on a build and my CPU is pegged at 13%.

I also feel like the marketing of these processors is confusing. Back in the day, when I was doing my first profession software projects on an IBM XT it was very clear what the performance boost would be when transitioning to the 80286 processor or the addition of the 80287 to your IBM AT. I continued to understand what I was buying throughout the next decade or two. I chose the 486DX 50 rather than the DX2 66 because the distinction was as clear. At some point though the marketing materials just got too confusing. Maybe it's just that I'm old now, but I can't figure out what they are selling or why I would choose one processor from another anymore. I went to Dell and ordered the fanciest one (based on price). That clearly was not the right answer. I've asked people who appeared knowledgeable on the topic to explain it to me, but the answers sounded more like BS than CS. Perhaps as it has become more difficult to differentiate their products based on merit they chose to obscure their offerings with lingo and slogans in hopes of gaining sales through confusion. Or, maybe I'm just to old and dumb to get it anymore.