Here are a few link to lists that answer your question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3#Projects_based_on_the_GPL_source_release
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_2#Games_based_on_the_GPL_source_release
Use ConnectBot (free) to create an SSH tunnel to another computer, with dynamic port forwarding. This creates a SOCKS5 proxy. Then use Firefox (free) with the Firefox add-on Proxy Mobile installed. Set the proxy settings in Firefox to the SOCKS5 proxy set up with ConnectBot.
Done. Secure proxy over WiFi when browsing.
However, if you want system-wide proxy support (everything going through the proxy), you'll very likely need to root.
The phone does it.
Incorrect. It's done in the cloud, just like Android's implementation. You need a data connection for it to work. Apple stated this in the introductory announcement.
I'm not talking about savvy users. I'm talking about average users. Ones who visit a site and get confused why things aren't working and get frustrated before, finally, after a couple minutes, realizing they might be running into a NoScript problem, and then do those one or two clicks to get it working. And then repeat the cycle again when they're off to the next site.
I bring up average users because the malware blocking features in Chrome and IE9 are targeted at average users.
NoScript blocks more malware than either.
NoScript turns practically every site a regular user visits into a broken mess. The amount of time I've seen NoScript users deal with reconfiguring NoScript just so they can have a reasonably decent browsing experience far exceeds the amount of time they would have to spend dealing with malware. It's like watching Mel Gibson use his apartment in Conspiracy Theory.
...if there isn't a way to browse the internet WITHOUT Silk, I won't use it much at all.
You can turn Silk off and not use it all. Then it just acts like any other webkit browser.
It was a success in making Facebook to improve their service.
Facebook still hasn't improved my trust in them, though.
Facebook improving their "Lists" feature to act like Google+'s Circles doesn't make me any more inclined to use Lists. The fact is, Facebook lost my trust a long time ago and will never get it back. They have a long, long history of opening up your private information without your consent and then (sometimes) allowing you to opt back in to the more closed model.
Lists are something I do not ever want to be public, but I have no assurance or trust whatsoever that Facebook won't one day decide to make everyone's lists viewable to everyone else. As much as I don't trust Google, I at least trust that they won't screw that up.
Before agency, Amazon [sold to customers at a price they were happy with]. Apple [screwed over Amazon's ability to do that] when they announced iBooks. Seems [you] forget this fact. If you are [a consumer], you are very [pissed off] Apple changed the e-book world.
I'm happy Google and Amazon took this route. The less money given to Apple from this market, the better. Apple's actions were not pro-consumer with regard to e-books and the agency model, and they shouldn't be rewarded for those actions.
They probably have some part of their game that connects to a server to post scores, or some code that phones home. But most likely its a score posting and during that connection they get a unique ID for that phone so you can over write your best score. But if 8,659 people send in scores, but only 2,831 purchases were made, they can determine that most likely there is a 67% piracy rate for their application. So, its a guess, but a very educated guess, and could actually be said to be the lowest their app is being pirated, in that it could be higher amount of people having it installed but are not phoning home.
This is why we need more transparency in the numbers. The numbers scenario you describe could actually occur with no piracy at all. The Android Marketplace has a feature where you can buy an app and try it out for 24 hours and then return it for a full refund if you don't want it. Conceivably, 8,659 people could have bought the app and then played it for a day, but only 2,831 people ended up keeping it, meaning the developer only sees 2,831 purchases, but also sees 8,659 different score submissions to the server.
However, just the presence of random files on the system could be incriminating. Perhaps it's better to hide the data in another type of file? Perhaps using the lsb of a bitmap file?
Or just name the file JavaRandomNumberSeedFile.txt or similar.
My father was a God-fearing man, but he never missed a copy of the New York Times, either. -- E.B. White