I'm surprised Google killed Wave when they haven't killed many other long-standing projects they have going that are much less popular with users and, as a result, much less lucrative. I think it was a clash of heads between Rasmussen and the top over what his priorities should be. They probably wanted something that would be as instantly popular as Maps. Wave did have potential especially if they marketed it alongside Google Apps for Business, but it's definitely not going to drive the kind people who use Facebook to start switching in droves to using Wave instead -- that's a bit unrealistic. If that's what Lars was looking for, everyone's probably better off with him at Facebook.

For all Americans who think this will never happen to them, you should read this article from Reuters just this past Wednesday. Looks like the Canadian telecom industry is the role model our boys are looking to follow. But unlike what the article says, Canadians are not accepting this situation lying down. They are actively seeking out and subscribing to the new disruptive competition like Wind Mobile and Mobilicity.

One would be surprised how many people would rather see adverts than knowingly or inadvertently revealing more private data to them via their billing information by paying for the service.

Interesting. Actually, that begs the question of what exactly is the plaintiff seeking in damages against this kid? If they aren't seeking any real damages, then they want a symbolic victory and are potentially trying to teach the child a lesson. If so, this will get squashed before it goes to trial because they will deem that it's up to the state to decide if the child's life should be affected by what happened. The plaintiff obviously doesn't have the child's best interest in mind. And the child's best interests is usually the most important thing to the state at such a young age... and continues to be a major factor in court cases until the age of majority.

Can a four-year-old vote? No.
Can a four-year-old get married? No.
Can a four-year-old do much anything outside of the house without adult supervision? No.

Looks like the issue isn't with the judge or this ruling, but with the legislation that says accountability starts at 4.

Oracle should never have been allowed to buy Sun. Instead it should have been liquidated (since that's what happening anyways... particularly with the high-profile Sun departures).

And so it begins...

Agreed. Moreover (but completely the opposite of you), I fully expect NASA to receive substantially less than what these assets are worth. Government auctions have the habit of turning into fire sales on public investment.

That is.. until you realize that it's nothing personal to the companies involved (i.e. it's just business). Particularly nowadays, being on both the filing and receiving end of lawsuits are a healthy part of every businessman's diet. My.. it must be good to be a patent lawyer in Silicon Valley ;)

Personally, I think Google needs to take a serious look at taking over supporting OTA updates. Yes, there are currently practical obstacles like how to separate core Android from the carrier's aesthetic modifications, but I don't think that would be impossible to address. People mention the specific low-level tuning done by carriers and their manufacturer partners as a major issue. This is something that Google should clamp down on now that they have gained significant market share. They should ensure that Android manufacturer pass all certification tests and don't fool around with anything that Google can't support themselves (besides trivial aesthetic concerns). Now is also the time to start adopting the Fuck off! strategy for dealing with manufacturers who want to use Android but don't want to obey the rules. Google now has clout. Before anyone says Google would end up looking like Apple, to that I respond that they should ensure the industry has some level of influence in their design decisions for Android going forward, but all OEMs going rogue with certified Android is simply not Option 2.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but what incentive do the carriers have to provide OTA updates after a customer has purchased a phone and data plan? I think the answer is: very little and probably not at all. I myself would like to believe that customer satisfaction would be a good reason, but I think it's the just a matter of.. once they have your money and updates are not specifically scheduled in the contract then tough luck.

Maybe. Maybe not. I, for one, am awaiting Chrome OS and Google's take on what a Linux desktop should be like. Though I am aware it's gonna target Netbooks, Tablet's, etc., I do think Gnome/KDE need some competition.

After what they "learned from iOS", if Apple could get away with locking down OS X, they would. Pure and simple. The only reason they aren't is that they don't think they can get away with doing that, yet. They want to monetize their devices as much as possible, and tax developers on their platforms. They are not chasing developers. They want developers to chase them, the way they do on iOS. That is a big part of their business model going forward. And yes, developers do chase Apple to get on the iOS. Whether this is all bad or good is up to you. Whether you want to invest in Mac for your enterprise or at your home is up to you.

Astroturfing? maybe. But I think the explanation is much more simple.

As someone who enjoys Apple products (both hardware and software), but has used, and at times appreciated, Windows, Linux and other OSs, I'd have to say that recent decisions and moves by Apple are becoming more and more difficult to justify or support. Unless of course, one were to have some vested interest in it, such as to work for Apple or one of its close partners. Otherwise, as a user, I'd say there's a lot of slashdot users who still love and use Apple products, but are no longer willing to put their neck out for Apple the way you might see say a Bush, Republican or Tea Party supporter do these days (for those causes).

There is some wisdom in what you write.

I would say that "all" three operating systems have their merits (having used and abused all three :)

Windows (right now still the most practical to deploy in the enterprise. Just ask most any IT departments)

Mac (the best desktop experience, but backed by the one-company-to-rule-them-all)

Linux - let's say Ubuntu (who can argue with a great desktop that is free, but Ubuntu needs to hire a desktop designer to smooth the rough edges, and there still are many)

Anyone care to comment on this? Or maybe backup this claim with references? Sounds like hyperbole to me.