Hmm - if that is true, I wonder why Google wants to create the impression it has a security team that is quite happy to pretend to be law enforcement.
Because, unlike Apple, they could not get actual law enforcement interested in getting involved. So they needed to do something to add some drama, intrigue, and a sense of danger to the situation.
I'm sure that there are some folks with big pockets that will like the phone, but I just don't see it having the kind of mass appeal that the iPhone does. On the other hand, a huge phone definitely can't be missed on a display filled with normal size phones, so it will get attention at Best Buy.
I've seen women with hands big enough to hold this phone comfortably. Of course, they used to be men.
If you can imagine a 4.7" display functioning as a laptop replacement for routine stuff, you've got way better eyes than I have. I go nuts having to work on a laptop with a 13" display.
Even if you're Google, you can't create much buzz about the release of yet another Android phone into an already overcrowded marketplace. It's about as exciting as a new inkjet printer.
Outside of the nerdosphere, there really isn't a lot of call for a phone that is almost the size of a small tablet . It dwarfs the iPhone 5 shown next to it, and bigger isn't always better in something that is supposed to be portable. Well-heeled consumers can afford both a smartphone and a tablet. They don't need a phone so large that it requires its owner to only buy clothes with massive pockets.
Maybe searching for love on Google wasn't working out so well...
Microsoft's entire security model was based on the idiotic notion that one could take a single user OS with no security (Win 3.x/95/98/Me) and years later create successors (NT/2K/etc.) that didn't break applications that were already written. It wasn't users -- it was coddling the software vendors that drove the convoluted, unmanageable pseudo-security that got pasted on to the OS.
No rational OS architect would have permitted end-user applications to write to OS system directories, nor would they have allowed Dynamically Linked Libraries to be created and added to OS directories with no entity controlling the namespace (meaning you could create a blorm.dll that installed with your product and I could create a blorm.dll that overwrote it when my product was installed).
Other ideas, like allowing some kid in the Philippines to e-mail you a script that automatically ran when viewed, were just examples of the level of stupidity that had permeated the Microsoft campus.
It's you who does not seem to get it: The original poster was being sarcastic and vindictive -- which is fine by me when Comcast starts capping a service that they sold as "unlimited."
Comcast's decision to cap the usage is not based on some altruistic concern for their users. It's simply motivated by profit. If they were so concerned that their users all experience top-notch speeds, they could simply purchase more bandwidth, install more fiber, etc.
If the response by their "normal" users to the cap was massively increased usage, then the cap would go away -- since the whole purpose of it is to cut back on the amount of bandwidth that Comcast has to provide.
Numerous people outside the U.S. are demanding that control of the IP address space and name space on the Internet be turned over to some international body. The arguments are just being recycled ad-nauseum at this point and none of them stands up to scrutiny. Let's examine the most common ones with analogies for clarity:
1. 'The way that the U.S. doles out IP addresses and top-level-domains is unfair.'
When I checked Slashdot today, I discovered that my five most recent postings had all been modded down by one point (overrated). These were postings in three separate threads on different subjects. Two of the postings had been modded up shortly after they were made.
If you are a U.S. citizen and a technical professional, it's time that you call your Congressional representatives and tell them to eliminate the H-1B visa program. According to the latest (as of 02/09/2003) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, there are about 94,000 unemployed U.S. computer scientists. Yet, at the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of H-1B visa workers holding tech jobs in the U.S. -- often the same jobs for which unemployed U.S. citizens are qualified and avai