Maybe Google never formally said that, but here is how Wikipedia describes Android:

The Android operating system software stack consists of Java applications running on a Java based object oriented application framework on top of Java core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine featuring JIT compilation.

Even clearer, Google says

The Android SDK provides the tools and APIs necessary to begin developing applications on the Android platform using the Java programming language.

in developer.android.com.

Talking points:

• "here is how Wikipedia describes Android": Now there's a cogent, accurate description... I don't think so.
• "using the Java programming language (not copyrightable, not patentable), not "using a Java Virtual Machine" (patent - maybe, copyright - yes).

See any difference?

I am neither defending the existence of Gitmo, or the shutting down of Gitmo. Only that the President said he would shut it down and did not do it.
It is only an example, one of many, of the promises that were broken.

And just how, exactly, will he shut it down safely when Congress will not appropriate the funds? Remember, even though the Democratic party has a numerical majority, they do not have the votes to override the obstructive Republican party. The Republican party will vote against their own interests rather than give the President a "win".

Microsoft built its browser so that users must deliberately turn on privacy settings every time they start up the software.

And how exactly is this different than what Chrome or Firefox does? Last time I checked, you had to actively enable the privacy feature for each session in all browsers..

First:

Many also have big stakes in online advertising. Microsoft bought aQuantive, a Web-ad firm, in 2007 for more than $6 billion, to build a business selling ads online.

Second:

When Microsoft released the browser in its final form in March 2009, the privacy features were a lot different from what its planners had envisioned. Internet Explorer required the consumer to turn on the feature that blocks tracking by websites, called InPrivate Filtering. It wasn't activated automatically.

What's more, even if consumers turn the feature on, Microsoft designed the browser so InPrivate Filtering doesn't stay on permanently. Users must activate the privacy setting every time they start up the browser

Firefox (and possibly Safari and Chrome do not reset to allow tracking once it is set.

Since Microsoft (like Google) owns a web advertising firm, they have a strong vested interest in being able to track "consumers" usage (note I did not say "customers").

I think that government entities should be working hard to do that but what I don't believe is that corporations are required to make their bidding lower to the government because they aren't as capable as private entities to ensure their contracts are reasonable.

You obviously don't understand the reason for GSA contracts. It is not only to save money (though that is good for the government), it is also to streamline the purchasing process.

Once a company agrees to be bound by the terms of the GSA contract, it is no longer necessary to go through the bidding process for each unit purchase (which would require separate contracts for each purchase). It also gives that company a competitive advantage over any company that does not enter such an agreement.

If the Department of State needs additional licenses, they simply submit a purchase order. Same with the Department of Justice. It is not necessary to complete a request for quotation, submit it for review, get a sales manager out to negotiate etc.

Result: quick turnaround on orders at best possible price.

The point of mad wifi is he can use that to exploit the WPA2, it seems that you think it's an exploit within the drivers.

No, the article (as I quoted) states that it is the driver. Pay attention to what you are responding to.

Also, this exploit is useful if you have access to the network, since you have physical access to some machine near the AP

Not on MY NETWORK, since with Radius or TACACS+ there is more to the authentication than you think.

Besides, this is broadcast traffic (which should not have critical information) as opposed to point-to-point authenticated traffic.

If you are sending sensitive traffic over broadcast protocols, you deserve what you get.

If your network security administrator (who might be your system administrator too) allows it, FIRE THEM NOW.

Ahmad says it took about 10 lines of code in open source MadWiFi driver software, freely available on the Internet

Which is no longer used in current Linux kernels (and won't even compile properly without major tweaks.

The problem appears restricted to WPA Enterprise (802.1X with TKIP/AES-CCMP) in practical terms, because a malicious user must have legitimate credentials to gain access to the network to exploit the flaw.

And admin level access to the system to perform MAC spoofing. Sure, another user could see your broadcast transmission, but the user credentioals are not used during broadcast.

The printing was by far the harder part - the browsers initially returned very different printed results even though they rendered the page on-screen almost identically. Changes to the CSS would frequently fix the printing of one while breaking the other, yet not affecting the on-screen rendering of either.

And did you manage to get it printing consistently on Windows (since you are including IE) using different brands of printers? How about on different workstations?

When you are planning for an application that needs a consistent display appearance and a consistent print layout, the only way is to use an environment that is display agnostic (across platforms) and printer agnostic (across brands).

If your only platform is Windows, you can get away with Direct-X for the display part. All else, probably X11.

Printing means Postscript (with printers or drivers that can handle that for input) or PDF.

Bad example, here--AT&T, Sprint, or VZW actually are "premium" services compared to Boost or Cricket. Just look at the coverage maps.

News flash - use Boost CDMA and you are using Sprint (IDEN on Boost is the old Nextel which, while still Sprint, does not have the coverage).

That's just stupid. Upholding the constitution is the duty of Congress, not the states, and enforcing it is the duty of the Court. This is ideal, since the Court also adjudicates the law, actions taken by the Court regarding the constitutionality of a law are immediate, and require no group consensus.

Close, but put down that Cohiba ;-)

Creating laws consistent with the Constitution is the duty of the Legislative branch (the Congress).

Enforcing the Constitution, laws and regulations is the duty of the Executive branch (the Administration).

Interpreting laws and regulations with respect to the Constitution is the duty of the Judicial branch (the Courts).

Actually, he tried to give them 60 days, but when it became obvious after 5 that they weren't taking it seriously, he released the exploit.

In order to believe that Tavis Ormandy is at fault, you have to believe the following:

• Ormandy is the only researcher who found the issue.
• Ormandy released the information strictly to embarrass Microsoft.
• Prior to his release, the bug had never been exploited by anyone.
• If he had not released the details, no one would have known about the problem, so there would be no risk.
• Microsoft was working diligently on a fix as soon as they knew.
• Tavis Ormandy, working strictly from observed behaviour, is smarter than Microsoft's programmers (who have access to the code).

Based on past history, I would conclude the following:

• Ormandy did indeed notify Microsoft prior to public disclosure.
• He tried (unsuccessfully) to pin Microsoft down to a commitment to fix the problem.
• When that failed, he disclosed the issue to the public.
• We now know (almost immediately) about an exploit because now the A-V vendors are looking for it, not because his information made the exploit possible.

Had he not gone public, Symantec, Sophos, McAfee and the others would not have added it to their definitions. In point of fact, by disclosing the specific attack profile he made it possible for them to release a protection protocol that much sooner.

as a web app developer, I spend a lot of time in phpMyAdmin getting a query perfect.

And if you do that on a production database, you deserve to be:

• Drawn and quartered.
• Taken out back and shot.
• Skinned alive. (repeat as necessary)
• Stretched on a rack.
• Hung by the neck until dead.
• Buried alive.

Repeatedly.

If anybody has other suggestions (as painful as the imagination will allow), please feel free to add them.

They're useful to governments because of taxes so governments certainly don't want to fight them.

Yet they are a perfect example of the schizophrenic nature of our legislators:

• They ban smoking in office buildings that might be visited by the public
• They try to ban smoking in cars where children are present
• They ban smoking on beaches and other open air venues

Yet,

• They slap high taxes on purchase - so high that governments are dependent on people to continue smoking
• They subsidize tobacco farmers at the same rate as food stuffs
• They salivate at the bribes^W campaign contributions from tobacco growers

Imagen how many more cities, counties and states would have to declare bankruptcy if everybody stopped smoking tomorrow.

An antivirus company saying that Windows in insecure would be like BP saying that we should all switch to solar power and stop using oil.

Not to excuse the cretins that set up the circumstances for the current mess in the Gulf, but BP actually is a strong proponent of solar usage. At least in the States, their Arco stations are (where practical) using solar power as much as possible.

To verify your citizenship status.

Wrong. The reason for your SSN being collected is Child Support Enforcement.

Did they engage in defamation? Yes. Is defamation legitimate grounds for suspension? No.

That is untrue. It is absolutely grounds for suspension. I was a high school teacher for five years and dealing with discipline amongst the students is paramount

As another has commented, if the defamation occurs on school grounds, while the student is in your charge, suspension might be appropriate. If you wish to have the authority to impose discipline for a students actions, you have to be prepared to take the responsibility that goes along with it.

You are free to pursue civil charges against the student (and their lawful guardian), but you are not free to insert yourself into such actions.

As a teacher you've got to stand in front of 30 (ish) teenagers and teach. Many of them don't want to be there, some of them have decided that they hate you personally over some personal slight from six months ago (ie: telling them they must complete their assignment rather than playing flash games, or it seems an issue with uniform as in the article).

And if you are not prepared to handle it or incapable of doing so, you are in the wrong profession. What you describe is specifically related to your ability as a teacher.

Inside or outside of school is irrelevant (though is it the case that the speech that is accessible in school is speech in school?)

It does not matter that the "speech" is "accessible in school (although your school might want to look at it's policies), it is that it is not expressed on school grounds.

Leaving discipline choices up to the good parents is fine, leaving discipline choices up to bad parents is disaster.

And who left it up to you to decide who is a good parent? Do you have that list of qualities to judge by? Or are you just advocating something similar to Mr. Justice Stewart regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it"?

At the end of the day, the punishment of suspension is about teaching them right from wrong, and a page calling your teacher a pedophile is wrong.

You seem to think that your job is simply teaching morals. Your job is not to decide what is right and what is wrong (especially when the conduct is out of your sight and control). You are not the keeper of the compass.

If you are wronged in any fashion, there are legal remedies. You seem to advocate bypassing them and acting as the arbiter of morals, even when you are not given such authority.