Yes, Wikipedia has this.

The whitepaper examines the permissions apps request, not the actions apps perform.

Sadly requested permissions are not nearly as good an indicator for potential threats as one might think. In my own app, for example, I require the permission to read contact data - there is a use-case for that. However, that in no way implies that the app e.g. harvests email addresses for a spam service. Which it easily could, with that permission.

Hey, I had tons of invites, perhaps we could've done that before... but nobody asked for them for some reason.

The discussion about whether or not is a word is what seems like a waste of effort to me.

But my previous comment wasn't meant to be a call for people to use the word "malamanteau", it was a call for people to use whatever words they like. That's what keeps language alive and kicking.

Just use the damn word; if it happens often enough, then Wikipedia can rightfully include it and the discussion is over.

Damn! I'm running Plan9 here!

... Duke Nukem Forever has ALSO been released.

That's a pretty simplistic attitude.

"Would you like to not have red hair, like just about everyone else?"
"Would you like to be shorter/taller than you are, like just about everyone else?"

We build our surroundings inaccessible to people who are short or tall beyond the standard deviation. We discriminate - some of us, at least - against those who are "different". The moral dilemma is that we really should change that rather than change those who are "different". As long as we don't, there's an enormous amount of pressure on those "different", to the point where many of them might actually answer the above questions with "yes".

"Would you like to have darker/lighter skin than you do, like just about everyone else [where you live]?"
"Would you like to have straighter/curlier hair than you do, like just about everyone else [where you live]?"

At that point we're dangerously close to racism. Which is just one form of discrimination; you can just as easily discriminate against the red-haired, the deaf, or the colour-blind.

If that's what you catch yourself doing, change yourself, not them.

...but this whole thing about "unrealistic" and yada-yada is very foreign to someone who has grown up in Sweden. I have had a 100/100 Mbit/s unmetered connection for the last 3 years. It costs me about 45-50 USD / month.
This is not uncommon, rather it's the rule. It's also quite rare to see services below 10 Mbit/s unless you are in a rural area.

The reason you don't see 100 Mbit conenctions in the US is because the big telcos are not feeling the heat, they are lazy.

"Summon Lich" vs. "Summon Rich"

I always kinda liked that one, I imagined some guy named Rich in a Grim Reaper costume appearing to smite my enemies.

So in other words, it's Quantum theft. In all seriousness though, I understand that if done excessively, using someone's unsecured Wifi could cause them problems, either by making them exceed their bandwidth caps or by negatively impacting their service while you are using it. However you seem to be making an all-or-nothing thing out of this in that since you *could* cause them problems, then the practice is intrinsically wrong. I see no problem with it if your usage is not excessive.

And as for your friends anecdotal casual observations, how about an actual study on the effect of light rail on crime in Los Angeles: http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/rpubs/pubdetails.cfm?ID=53
(I can use google too, but I obviously found a source quite a bit more credible than a right wing blog citing a mayor in an interview regarding a specific case, with no information whatsoever regarding other factors, or even if the situation was the same before light rail was built)

From the abstract:
"At the end, the study establishes that the transit line has not had significant impacts on crime trends or crime dislocation in the station neighborhoods, and has not transported crime from the inner city to the suburbs."

There's been a relative scare over this a few months ago, in or around Novembre 2009. Suddenly a flurry of blog posts announced that the fragmentation in Android devices and OS versions will surely doom the platform forever.

Interestingly enough, round about the same time, some Facebook developer got vocal about Apple's app store policies and talked about rejecting the iPhone because it sucks so much (paraphrased).

To me, all this means that there's a platform war raging right now, and perpetuating one myth or another by reposting it is not going to help the better platform win.

Now I earn money developing for both platforms, and - if you take my word for it - I can tell you that each of them sucks in it's own way, and pretty hard in some cases. I'll not give a list of what *I* think sucks on each platform, because ymmv.

But this whole fragmentation thing being a problem is mostly a myth. Yes, you'll need to design your app a little carefully to run on all (or almost all) devices out there. But then you need to do the same thing for other platforms as well, it's just not as widely advertised.

The release of the iPad might change people's perceptions of that when it comes to iPhone OS - there's already a pretty severe fragmentation happening here, but people tend not to realize unless they use certain functionality. Games depending on high framerates. Or phone functionality. Or a compass. Or whatever.

Fragmentation when it comes to mobile devices is pretty much inevitable. If you didn't expect that, you're an idiot. At least Android tries to be helpful and points that out right in it's developer documentation.

At the basis of Capitalism is a Free Market. There are at least two conditions that must be present for a Free Market to meet its definition:
* barriers to entry must be close to zero (exactly zero is impossible)
* perfect information about all products/services in the market is available to all customers

Unfortunately, no markets truly satisfy this condition. Instead, what we have are markets that fall in a spectrum: some have low barriers to entry and information is broadly available (carpentry), others have very high barriers to entry and broadly available information (ISPs), and others finally have very high barriers to entry and no available information (financial markets).

So no, Capitalism is not really the problem, nor is the banking problem the result of pure Capitalism. On the contrary. The banking problem arose because the underlying requirement for a free market was not there. Which means that the real, fundamental problem is actually with Free Market evangelists who preach capitalism without understanding its limitations. In that sense, they operate much like the communists of yore, who were waiting for the proletarian revolution that "was just around the corner." It never came, because they had made assumptions about human nature that just didn't hold. Just like the Capitalist evangelists with their "The Free Market will fix itself" assumption.