But does it happen on the roads? Not really.

It happened to me, and I have the six-inch scar from the incision to repair my left elbow as testament. It happened to my brother, and he has the scars on his ear from the plastic surgery to reattach it as testament. The fact that it has not happened to you does not mean that it does not happen.

or they ride into a suddenly opened car door, that sort of thing and the helmet doesn't do shit

Sure it does. In my case, my helmet stopped me from having my head cracked open the way my helmet cracked when I hit the asphalt in a slow-speed accident. In my brother's case, he was not wearing a helmet and suffered the consequences -- his ear would not have been nearly torn off otherwise. The fact that it has not happened to you does not mean that it does not happen.

A bike helmet does not stop all possible injuries (e.g., to elbows) any more than an (American) football helmet stops all possible injuries (e.g., to knees). It is certainly worthwhile debating whether the frequency of such injuries is worth legislation to mandate such safety equipment. But slow-speed accidents do happen and helmets can help in these cases, whether you like it or not.

"It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy" -- you are welcome to provide evidence of this claim. Here is the actual Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Article 9 allows a state to demand that an "the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission" is "persona non grata" and force that person to be recalled. That is an individual, not the entire embassy/mission. And that's about it, short of breaking off of diplomatic relations, which is not exactly a trivial act.

And, without the ability to "dissolve the embassy", the UK claims to "take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy" implies "storm the embassy by force", if Ecuadoran staff resists.

CommonsGuy wrote a good post about this (no, I'm not him)

No, but I am! :-) (and thanks for the kind words!)

This library is essential for Android application development, therefore it would become legally impossible to develop a closed-source Android app.

By that argument, it would be legally impossible to develop a closed-source Linux app. Yet there are many closed-source Linux apps. Do not confuse "linking with a GPLv2 library" and "writing for an OS that contains GPLv2 libraries".

The version of Honeycomb we’ve shown is optimized for tablet form factors. All of the UI changes are the future of Android. Yesterday’s event focused on tablet form factors, which is where you’ll first see Honeycomb.

Without asking me.

They asked you in the Terms of Service you agreed to when you used the Android Market for the first time.

I thought I could run any app I wanted? That is what you people told me.

You do not have to get your apps through the Android Market. Anything you install outside of the Market is your responsibility.

There is no "properly" in some cases, for an upgrade to be sufficiently reliable.

The fact that the modding community can turn on OS around in a few weeks and push it back out to the device is testament to how easy it is to put these newer versions of software on the phone, and it just the manufacturers trying to add their own crap back on that is the issue.

It is not that simple.

As just one example, ROM modders are willing to put up with "brick rates" that would result in class action suits if a device manufacturer and carrier tried the same thing. A 99% success rate -- which a ROM modder would probably consider to be pretty good -- would still mean in excess of 10,000 bricked G1s, 10,000 bricked Magics, etc. ROM modders simply are willing to use techniques (e.g., re-partitioning flash) that device manufacturers deem too risky. Hence, device manufacturers and carriers elect to be more conservative, so they do not wind up with millions of dollars in extra support costs.

Applying HTC Sense and MOTOBLUR and such to new Android releases does indeed involve work, and that definitely has an impact on upgrade availability. But it's not the whole story. Some of the reasons are good for consumers (e.g., minimizing bricked phones), and some of the reasons are bad for consumers (e.g., emphasizing new products at the expense of old).

Keep in mind that for most nationally published authors, the royalty is on cover price in all but a few very carefully worded exceptions that do not usually apply.

That may be true for the YA market. For technology books, and AFAIK non-fiction in general, royalty rates in contracts are on net (after reseller discounts), rather than on gross. That certainly was the case for the two I signed, and I did a fair amount of research to determine that this was, indeed, the norm. Reseller discounts can run as high as 55%, though ~40% is more typical.

And, of course, that's a good part of the reason why I started my own publishing firm.

Techdirt did a nice deconstruction of the 24/7 Wall Street analysis. In a nutshell, 24/7 Wall Street applied the Drake Equation to iPhone apps, piling on layers of hand-waving to come up with their figure.

And, to show off his geek cred, Techdirt's Mike Masnick included the xkcd Drake Equation comic.

I wish this functionality was built into the OS, rather than having to do it manually (for example, a way to disallow internet access during installation)

I'm sure you know this, but for other readers of your post -- just as there is a permission to read contacts and such, there is a permission apps have to request to gain access to the Internet. So, at install time, you can read through the list of requested permissions and take appropriate action. For example, I rarely install ones that ask for my contacts and for the Internet, even presumably reputable apps like the Evernote client.

What you can't do is later change your mind (other than to uninstall the app) or selectively grant permissions. Your iptables trick lets you change your mind on the Internet permission, in effect.

It's only open source until Google decides that they don't want someone else using the "Open Source" code and files a court injunction as was done last week.

And your proof of this claim is...what, exactly?

Perhaps you are referring to an incident from about 2-3 weeks ago, when a ROM modder was sent a cease-and-desist letter by Google for including closed-source applications in his Android ROMs. The consensus opinion is that Google was legally right but clumsy in how they handled this incident. However, misrepresenting what happened helps nobody.

If you are going to bash, bash evenly.

Better yet, bash factually.

In the interest of full disclosure, per my sig, I'm involved in the Android development community.

The difference with Android, versus the other two options, is that the hardware manufacturer and the OS implementer are decoupled.

Android supports root just fine. However, device manufacturers offer no official means to get to root and no official means to flash root-enabled system images. This is no different than Linux supporting root but TiVo not exactly enabling it on their DVRs.

What Android needs is some manufacturer to step up and offer root-capable devices, with limited muss or fuss.