Completely the wrong direction. Google should place close attention to the success of galaxy, not bottom of the market but trying to provide the most possible at a competitive price. TV market, go with a dumb big screen display and full featured Android media centre, basically a compact quite desktop PC and in a tablet as a remote and you are done. This provides a design specification for manufactured to follow but leaves them what made Android a success on mobile phones, a price range of hardware to fill out that specification. From size of display, to power of Android media player and of course DVD, Blueray, HDisk, CPU, MEMORY. Now they can really stick it to M$ if they add in server features, email, web, file.

So not cheap but provide as much possible bang for buck and dont shy away from a complete system, including the display.

Nope the simplest explanation is, it had to be either one or the other, complexity not altering the outcome. Take an coin toss a simple probability outcome, either heads or tails but the complexity of the event can be raised by many magnitudes of complexity and probability by not looking at whether the coin lands heads of tails, but at say how many calcium atoms will be scrapped from your thumb nail in the flipping action and be transferred to the surface where the coin lands. So both events occur simultaneously one the heads or tails, it has to be one or the other, very simple and the other the transfer of individual calcium atoms beyond our ability to accurately calculate now and will into the future (assuming we survive and escape psychopathic capitalism).

I think they have simply used a too dumbed down simile. Perhaps a better one would be a chain reaction with an catalytical agent. The chain reaction varies according to the catalysing agent or agents, whether internal bioelectrical stimuli, released hormones, drugs, dietary surges or direct physical stimulation. Also the current state of brain and the individual coincidental states of brain cells in molecular transition. So no simple sand pile.

A whole lot of people have already discussed that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... I prefer letter of the law as it is "blindly" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... and equally applied. If legislators are not happy with the outcome they simply have to attempt to rewrite the law until it matches their spirit or intent but is still equally applied as required by typical constitutions. I vehemently deny those who would apply interpretive legal opinion and categorically state that it is the antithesis of justice ie interpretive Islamic Sharia law (seriously is that what the hell you want). To state that one person in one court can give judgement of their personal opinion of the law and another person at another location can different opinion is the antithesis of justice, as those opinions can be bought and sold, as religious zealotry can affect them, as mood can affect them, as whether or not that person received sexual satisfaction the night before or not can affect them, etc, etc, etc. Take a long hard look at those images at the bottom of the article for Lady Justice and what they mean and why they are important.

'Erm" you do realise I am simply quoting yourself back to you ""If you are giving any sort of legal advice based around the Sales of Goods Act, please fucking stop as you have proved that you know shit about the topic." and "You must be so warped with hatred, because your posts are starting to become incoherent.", 'er' keep up the good work ;D, "so even "sticking to legislation" shows you to be full of crap." 'er' You do realise a lawyers office is not a point of government legislation and "The framework agreement and the order had to be read together" a specific specification provided by the client and a contract directly relating to that agreement, not a general purchase or a post purchase EULA. So you didn't even stick to legislation but when to commentary about a case not even properly citing the case.

Again you site corporate douche bagery why not stick to legislation, why try to go with contracts not tested in court, again proving "If you are giving any sort of legal advice based around the Sales of Goods Act, please fucking stop as you have proved that you know shit about the topic." When you claim to cite law, cite law, not untested contracts.

Lets look at it logically. A personal belief would be deciding upon the issue of marriage as it relates to your religion as is defined by your religion, that is a personal manner. When you take it to an act of administrative law you are logically shifting it from a personal religion to attempting to subvert the constitution and force you religious beliefs upon others under the guise of law.

Take for example a personal opinion of mine, I am opposed to divorce, not meaning to say people should be forced to live together under law nor that they should be banned for following their own individuals paths or be be banned from having relationship with others. Just quite simply they have made a life vow and they should be bound to that life vow and simply legally not be allowed to cancel that one and start off another one (logically realistically pointless, the life vow, their word is meaningless and just a maybe). So more of a technicality of law than a religious belief. Want to make a life vow but want exclusion to enable breaking, then bloody include them in the vow, others don't take the vow in you have no intention of committing to it. So personally don't want to be stuck in that marriage simply walk away from, publicly declare yourself not a part of it, fine. Legally, well, you have had your shot at a life vow and failed, suck it up, you can not make another, so think a damn sight more carefully about that first one before you make it.

Sorry but law equally applied is letter of the law, newsworthy is only an opinion. So how far does it stretch, elected official, president, governor, mayor, city manage how about all government employees, work for the government and loose your rights. How about contractors and their employees, contracted by the government and you work for the government. Easy you think, then how about teachers and policemen which side of newsworthy are they. More realistically how about just you and yours are protected and everyone else is newsworthy.

Sorry you are just full of shite. .... ..... ..... news at 11 fit for purpose laws in the UK the term you were so clearly desperately trying to avoid ( as it is specifically illegally excluded in M$ EULAs http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/.... So regardless of your deceit, regardless of a company claiming to exclude fit for purpose, in the UK consumer laws categorically state that products must be fit for purpose. And by no stretch of the imagination can anyone claim that a software product, oh my, wear the fuck out ;D.

Ideally, as it would be free open source software by law, any company that chooses to could competitively support it.

Especially seeing as a government can and reasonable do so, demand that if a software companying refuses to support software already purchases it should by law be required to open up the source of that software so that it can be supported by others or warrant that the support is now finally free of all bugs and security flaws.

See you just dont get it, it is not about whether it is worse or better than at any particular time in history it is all about how accesible those targets are now. Before, well, you had to go through the whole base and the expanded and finally worn down defence force to get to them, now, well not so much so. Applying modern technology and more open borders, well, basically they can reach out and touch pretty much anyone, no matter how rich or powerful. Personally targeted weapon system from extended ranges are now practicable regardless of protection attempted, so that is the difference. Being the puppet masters in the background safe from retaliation is simply no longer possible, that is the change and that will reflect changes in tactics.

Your forget that the law is equally applied, can't protect the gullible and 'not so innocent' without protecting the politician. So are politicians entitled to hide the sexual peccadillos whilst publicly attacking others or not, chose one in all in, the law is the law. If you think politicians give a crap about the gullible 'not so innocent' you well are totally gullible and very likely 'not so innocent'.

There is a way, quite simple really. You buy a big screen dumb display and attach a Linux PC. Of course big screen displays with a whole lot less technology than a smart TV are some how more expensive than a smart TV, perhaps because they are trying to keep out an open market. The Linux PC of course will do everything you need it to do, flexibility of course creates a catch 22 , the more it can do the more complex the controls become. Of course do anything at all like adding a camera and voice capability and you really do want a PC to make sure security can be implemented properly and kept updated.

The "Smart TV" needs to shift from idiot box ideology to being a "Family Personal Computer" with enhanced security features. The Samsung model with a separate box just needs to be expanded upon, straight display with a, expandable media PC, sold as a package. Likely Dell could try making a push in this area.

You are attempting to claim the freedom to control others in actions that do not phsyically affect you but purely are the disruption of the false morality of behaving privately in a manner you claim publicly not to participate. Whose problem is it really when your private morality does not match the public reality that you claim, especially when very likely you attack others for having a public morality that matches you private morality.

Seriously think about this folks, should a family politician that claims homosexuals be fined and imprisoned or in any other way prejudiced against be allowed protection under law when caught photographically 'in flagrante delicto' with some of the same sex or should that image be legally published and that politician publicly ridiculed, how many regular two faced folks need to bear the adult responsibilities for their actions to ensure politicians and others are held to account. How many of those who cry foul the loudest ran around ridiculing others in similar situations just as loudly.