I consider myself pro-science, open to catastrophic scenarios, but also wary of cultural bias (I've lived in enough places to see how culture can affect a whole country even when the world is telling them they are wrong). Yours is the best post I've seen in a few years. It does really come down to separating the science from the politics. The political AGW crowd makes no reservations about accusing the motives and ethics of others. Big oil only interested in profit is destroying the planet, like the tobacco companies destroyed your health. OK, but the political AGW people are upholding their own ethical stance, their own sense of morality, for the planet and future generations, and THOSE ethical judgements also deserve scrutiny. Did you know that Apartheid was morally linked to a sense of natural order which came from ecology? The Western Buddhist types get it wrong -- simply being devoted to a higher morality and devoted to the good of the world and a higher consciousness does't automatically grant you knowledge of how to make that goodness a reality in practical social ways. It is those kinds of really hard questions that the political AGW crowd need to be willing to face, because feeling you are taking a higher moral stance is one thing, but actually knowing in practice what is a good solution is another thing entirely. People can be highly morally and ethically driven to do the right thing. But the biggest problem with global warming -- and global warming is just one instance of a whole class of global problems that go beyond national boundaries and seem to require some sort of global system -- the biggest problem is we don't know how to create a global system that can deal with global problems. Political AGW seem to claim more than enough practical certainty to believe that we have to act. OK, but who knows how to make the global system act? On ANYTHING? The "truth" is not enough. The globe isn't just 200 countries, it is a set of cultures that live in different ages. The Americans can't even sort out their own Republican v Democrat differences, which on a global scale, are negligibly different, and yet, the two sides sorta often hate each other, and yet, we're somehow going to unite the world under one main cause? It is one ecosystem but each culture sees that ecosystem from a very different place. People often severely underestimate the cultural differences around the world, which is ironic given how much people love to travel and "celebrate" other cultures. The reason global warming politically won't work is the same as why USA utterly failed in Afghanistan, and is still failing after 10 years -- it is a different culture, radically different, the people as a whole just don't share the same values, and there's no reason why they should, and no way to change them. They are adapted to their environment using the best cultural systems they know, codes that go back much longer than democracy or even authoritarian government. I picked up a little book, "What About China?" which purported to answer the global warming political issue of, why should the West commit to emissions cuts when China is industrialising? I was really curious to know, because I'd like to think I'm open minded. So I read the book, and it says, "we should set the good example." The naivety was astounding. China, considered itself the centre of the world and civilisation for so long that it figured the rest of the world wasn't even worth exploring, is now going to put the environment ahead of production because they want to follow the good example set by America? The irony of global warming politics is that the AGW crowd don't understand the world. They don't understand the diversity of culture. They're a clique (millions in a world of billions) who can only see their own moral stance, and can't understand the moral stances of others. This makes them as much part of the problem as anyone else in the global arena, because the world is culturally deeply fractured, and their approach of vilifying others only adds to that fragmentation. George W. Bush or Al Gore -- they both have an Us v Them attitude.

For the consumer, "fragmentation" and "differentiation" are mapped
as "confusion" and "getting that I want", respectively.

If a consumer knows why they're choosing something -- because they understand the pros and cons of all the competitors, then that's differentiation. I think this is reflected in your comment, where you know app compatibility doesn't depend on screen size or skin, for instance.

But if the particular consumer shopping that day doesn't understand all the differences, then "Android" as a brand, is fragmented.

I think what Google might do, if they want to keep Android as the OS that runs on hardware from multiple manufacturers/brands (and not turn into Googrola), is to advertise Android in a way that helps the consumer understand how to make choice. Otherwise, they'll be lured into the strict vertical model of Apple, which works for Apple, but isn't obvious that should work for anyone else. Apple's brand image was built over decades as "different" and "alternative" and "the one". Google's brand image, to my mind, as a person who Googles every day, and jumped to Google right away from, what was it, AltaVista, ick, doesn't fit that, and probably never will. Google isn't about the unique choice, one that's specially designed -- it is about open access to a variety of information, and helping me understand stuff. I think they kinda need to do that for Android, ie. customer education, advertise to take people through that sense of -- and here they can copy Apple's ads by way of showing how people use it in life -- showing how different people with different requirements went about choosing a particular handset.

Consumers watching Apple ads are getting the message that they can expect to do everything on their iPads. Now that right there is the opposite of fragmentation and the opposite of confusion. Yet that is exactly how customers need to understand Android. You can do lots and it helps to make choices but look, let us help you here: these are the things to consider when choosing, to figure out how it suits you and your lifestyle and work.

Then you can walk into a shop and ignore the salesman's crap, and knowing what you are looking for, pick the best handset that suits you.

There's also an argument that nature seems to "copy". Once it has done something, it seems to do it again more quickly. Now Star Trek was written to not be so alien looking that the audience couldn't relate to it. And I do get bored with endless forehead-ridge variations. Trek was like that for reasons of TV writing. But humanoids, or things that are sorta upright with four limbs, might be quite common anyway, simply because nature seems to repeat stuff. We might imagine some small change early on in evolution that would have made a very different outcome millions of years later, but life seems also pretty stable, in that, it sorta keeps to a pattern for a long time, then suddenly something changes and the new pattern spreads rapidly, but then it stays the same for a long time, and so on. I don't know if people know why and how patterns in nature spread rapidly. Like, suddenly there is a new species. (I'm not being creationist *spit* *spit* and there is this photocopier-like behaviour which suggests some additional blind and automatic mechanisms which we don't know about, or that we're somehow overestimating how many paths are actually available in the system). It is the "stays the same" and "copies" part that might suggest that alien worlds are similar to Earth. Why? Because Earth isn't special and because nature made it happen here, so we know it can happen, and therefore it is probably happening in a similar way elsewhere. (Of course I wouldn't bet on what aliens look like, but seeing as they're out there across the vast expanse of space, expecting them to be completely different, following a different path, is one view, but expecting them to be very similar, because nature and the universe "likes" to copy stuff, is another.)

Yes it is a land grab. But it is land nobody else seems to have known existed. People said "the iPad is just a giant iPhone, what's the point?? LOL!!". Well it turns out that if you make something very much like an iPad it can sell really well. Really, nobody should want an iPad, nor an Android tablet (no real keyboard for a start). These companies should just ignore the iPad, after all it is just a fad. /sarc I don't know how much control and power Apple or any company ought to have in fairness legally for what Apple did, but the patent system seems woefully broken for promoting innovation. It seems to hold back innovators whilst rewarding leeches.

Plus there's another issue: sometimes someone setting a standard by force can be beneficial in other ways. If the government can't do it (because they're too lame) then companies might, by playing hard and winning in the market. A monopoly isn't in itself bad for the consumer -- it can at times render other benefits to the consumer. The trouble is of course if you really want to have an Android 10" tablet and there are none available. But then other people might like to have ebooks and media go digital sooner -- technical progress -- so, that infrastructure needs forcing on the industry by a company with the power to do so. When I board a plane I don't care if it is an Airbus or a Boeing, I care about the convenience and price so that I can use the flight to get on with what I really want to do. Google is a pretty big monopoly but for the time being I don't care, there's too many benefits to having it for other things.

If the iPad as a force can help drive innovation in other ways, like drag publishers out of the Jurassic period, then that's one benefit. It is like a monogamous relationship -- there are benefits to be had that you don't get with an "open" relationship, and likewise sometimes it is better to not be in a relationship.

Open or closed, and choice or standard, aren't principles; they're just states. And sometimes one state is more useful and sometimes the other state is more useful.

At the moment, I feel the tablet form factor is still too new and untrusted for real work, so it needs a lot of control and focus -- so I'd prefer there not be a lot of competitors. Tablets need to become accepted as a real new platform. Once that happens, get the monopoly to break up.

The question is, for me, if Android tablets had been first to market, would we be seeing so much interest in tablets as a new platform?

Or would they just be, "giant iPods, what's the point, LOL?"

The tablet needs a really good working trustable ecosystem to get established as a real viable platform.

The difference is whether the people rioting have higher moral principles than the people they're protesting against.

The real tragedy for these kids is that they've somehow been raised to not know that setting fire to buildings where there are flats with people sleeping in above them might be like, a really bad thing to do, and that stealing just for the sake of stealing is also really bad, and that they have been raised or educated to have very little desire to make themselves better, to work hard, and would rather sit drinking in the early hours of the morning and claim that the riot was great fun. That is the tragedy. They aren't "disaffected", they're worse, they are damaged young people.

Their environment has failed them, both with their parents perhaps for being too insular culturally, and with their schools for being too liberal and not setting boundaries and discipline and a work ethic, and the companies that are too right wing and too busy looking after their own money interests than considering how to create jobs for very disadvantaged kids, and the government both on the left and the right for wasting money on stupid schemes that didn't work and then cutting that money, and all the bleeding hearts in-between who make a career out of "talking" and "community relations" and criticising the police instead of coming up with real solutions for developing these kids into healthy adults. It is so fucking tragic.

The girlfriend of the guy shot by the police said that these riots have nothing to do with the shooting. She said people are just using it as an excuse. She defended her boyfriend, said he'd never have been carrying a gun, but she also said the riots have nothing to do with that shooting. It is just people looting, and she was upset by it.

Er, the Egyptian bloggers have been saying, words to the effect, we protested for democracy, but you people are rioting to loot and burn?

The Egyptians know how to make this distinction.

Many people are trying to figure out why the youth are disaffected, and why they don't seem to know that it is a really bad thing to do to set fire to shops when people live above them and may burn to death. See pics of woman leaping from first floor window into arms of police.

Everyone is wondering why the journalists can interview these kids the next day and they reply, "oh yeah, we got wine to drink now we looted that shop and we're having a really good time, and we really hope it goes off again tonight!" (said the two young girls, words to that effect).

Trouble is, nobody really knows why these kids have been raised so badly and why the schools have taught them so badly and why their culture hasn't encouraged them to aspire to working hard and why there aren't enough job opportunities that suit their level of ability. It is tragic for them.

But also, people who can "think for themselves" and "not conform" have their own way of making decisions, like, "I just want a simple device that works for XYZ, as I'm too busy doing my real job where my skills and talents and creativity are focussed."

If your skills and talents are IT stuff then fine, but being an IT geek doesn't mean you're the only person who can think for themselves. Slight bias there with how you're framing the word "individuals".

In our little department (100 users) we're about to ditch our eMacs and iLamps. We've bought plenty of iMacs and minis over the years, but a single Leopard image has worked across all of them, including the iLamps. We are not big enough to need server racks, so a few Mac Pro servers aren't a space problem. With imaging tools, netboot, Apple Remote Desktop, LDAP, and network accounts, we've profided reasonably OK for our users. We are now moving to Lion, which is cheap and gives us full disk encryption, which these days we need, as well as the ability to manage iDevices, and yes it does obsolete our 5+ year old Macs, but that's not too bad when you've had 9 year old Macs in service.