Fission.
Fission Rom Manager is the whole thing you want, really.
The good news is that it runs well and is reported just fine with global use.
The bad news is that the dev has basically moved on and done no updates, at least not for the D2G and it is now an OLD rom.

There are other roms and methods of installing roms for other phones that work well reportedly, but if you need to be able to use the phone outside the US Moto and FRM seem the only options.

The url bar is an excellent tool and takes up very little space.

As time has gone on some developers seem to feel that a "clean" (empty) design both looks better and is easier to use. Not necessarily correct, folks.

Having to click on an area of a title bar and choose a menu option to be able to navigate to a site is NOT easier, better or a more elegant design than simply having a url bar.

I can understand (sort of) why Chrome is doing it- not as a better design but to get more advertising done as people resort to Google's Search to navigate to sites.
I can not understand why Mozilla is also choosing to send users to one search site or another to navigate to web sites... unless Google or another search company is paying them a bunch of cash.

Of course I am sure there will be at least one browser who chooses ease of use and security over "clean", bad design....

roflmao

The funny thing about this one is how exactly it is wrong.
There is no possible way for it to be more completely backwards.

That means that the source code for Android is available.

It does NOT mean that all the applications must be open source, it does not mean that every app must be able to access everything in the world.
It does not mean that the web browser on the phone can access a proprietary file format that is not compatible.

It means that the source code for the operating system itself is available and can be modified.

The FACT that Android is Open Source does give us, the users and potential users, a great deal of additional possibilities WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM.

It does not mean that phone manufacturers or carriers have a requirement to allow us to run a custom version of Android- some make it quite difficult in fact.
It does not mean that software developers are required to open source their applications (although some do.)

It does not even mean that Google is required to open source all of THEIR applications.

Being open source does not guarantee the os is easier to use, more stable or more resistant to malware.
Being Open Source does NOT mean that it is trivial to modify the OS so that a user can remotely drive their car with their cellphone!

But there ARE a tremendous number of advantages that being open source DOES provide: since the source is open, once a device can be updated (rooting and exploits usually required- carriers and manufacturers fault, not Google) it can often be updated and extended to be able to do more and work better than it did originally. Usually this is because the custom versions of Android are based on Google's Android, not the carrier/manufacturer versions.

Yes, I use Android on phones and a tablet and I am very happy with them.
Many people are likely to be happier with iPhones and other smartphones, and I am happy they have them.
But the fact remains that at an OPERATING SYSTEM LEVEL, Android is open and Iphone is not.
On a Market level, iPhone is severely restricted and Android far less so.

There are those who claim that jailbreaking and rooting are the same- completely incorrect. Very different indeed.
Jailbreaking an iPhone is more akin to installing the Amazon Market for Android than it is to rooting.

What you are referring to is "usability" NOT being "open."

Rather a huge difference.
Even if I did not disagree with your points about usability...

Open refers to Open Source which means that the operating system has source code available so that users can look at the code themselves and modify it if they so choose.

Usability, or Ease of Use refers to how easy it is to DO SOMETHING with the software. Email, web, video whatever you want.

By saying that Android is open Google does NOT imply that you can do anything with Android other than look at the source code.

However the ability and FREEDOM to look at the source code gives US (users) the ability to either modify the os ourselves or use code modified by others IF WE CHOOSE.

IOS is not open.
WIndows is not open.
Linux and Android ARE open.

Does this mean that they are better for all and sundry? No, of course not.
But they are better for many, and personally I have yet to find a better os for a smartphone: I can do more at lower cost, more reliably than with any other phone.

And I can do so without resorting to spreading FUD or false statements, pal. ;)

But there is one gem at least- more respect for Mark Cuban.

I have to think this is a joke.

Running a serious business server using a Microsoft product means you will HAVE to have a full time staff and multiple redundant systems to even approach a decent availability of service number.

Sounds to me like you would do better with GoDaddy or some other simple, easy webhost to avoid straining yourself.

Nowhere did I say that believing in God, a God or even many Gods made it impossible to understand math.
There have been and are now many people who are both religious and intelligent.

Creationists are another matter entirely.
They are a completely different discussion.

Anything that helps put creationism back in its place- as a fairy story told to and by those who have a hard time with the scientific process...
Or anything much more advanced than 2+2 (which equals 4 for any Creationists reading this.)

Getting kids excited about actual science and rational though processes is a good thing. And needed to help counter what some "people" (note the loose use of the term) try to pass off as science- creationism, "Intelligent Design" and the Flat Earth Society.

Hell, maybe they can get some adults interested in rational thought too!

This world will end a long time after humankind has rendered it unsuitable for life as we know it.

It was here before us and likely will be here long after us.

As for when WE (humankind) end- we seem determined to go away at some point in the next few centuries....

What would you prefer the definition of "habitable" to be? "Capable of supporting life that we do not know of or conceive."?

It is only logical to define habitable as capable of supporting life as we KNOW it and therefore earth-like.
A non earth-like planet isn't habitable by life as we KNOW it..

No single "alternative" energy source can replace what we have now.
ALL of them need further work- hydro, wind and tidal energy generation all can have massive impact on the environment they are located in.
Geothermal has only been really successful in specific, limited areas due to efficiencies needing certain circumstances as well.
Solar is inefficient and only works well in limited areas.
Nuclear power SHOULD be safer than it has proven but cost-cutting and politics has wreaked havoc.

Fortunately development continues on all of the alternatives energy sources and major achievements have occurred in solar and tidal in the very recent past, and the others are also getting much better.

Storage methods are also being worked on which is very important- traditional electrical batteries are inefficient and simply not up to the task (for performance, rare metals required and disposal reasons). Molten salts, pressurization and other technologies under development look promising though.

"Alternative" energy sources still do not account for a big portion of worldwide power usage, but it IS growing. Without government subsidies however, it wouldn't be cost effective in most places still: fossil fuels are cheaper and easier in the short term.

I voted for Hamsters.
Might as well get something useful out of rodents, and they would work better as an engine than electric cars!

lol.

Yeah, I know.

My only excuse for hoping for such a thing is this:

The CM Team has created the best version of Android for every device I have been able to use it on.
They fix things that Google get wrong, increase stability and improve the capabilities of both the devices and Android.

It would be good for ME and for Android if such a thing happened. Not necessarily good for the CM Team folks. ;)

I run gingerbread on a hacked Nook Color and it runs great, albeit with some phone crap that is useless since it isn't a phone.
I tried the hacked up version of Honeycomb Preview (not quite the real deal) and saw nothing that was all that compelling; I did have a lot of force closes and crashes though.

Gingerbread is SOLID on the tablet.

Reading this does lead me to think the problems with the hacked release of Honeycomb Preview are not due to the community so much as the screwed up original code. Which is why the source isn't to be released.

While I could wish many things- like having the CyanogenMod team be hired by Google!- I think this decision may actually be the right thing to do. Google says the code is flawed still so they don't want to release it.

I am sure that those more knowledgeable about the legal ramifications will deal with the situation and I hope that whatever accommodations should be made to satisfy the licensing (if any) WILL be made.
I don't expect Google to not be "evil"- they are a big company, so some amount of that is to be expected.
I do hope that they never forget what helped get them into their position and FOSS code was a pretty big part of that.
Do the ad-based stuff you need to, evil though it may be, but honor the code licenses, Google.