steal [steel] Show IPA ,verb,stole, stolen, stealing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2.
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

Well, remember the news corps they are bitching about google 'stealing' their news because everybody is just
reading the news at news.google.com ? If you can view the images directly on google without having to visit the
page, it's bound to get the same sort of reaction: 'google is stealing our images'...

Useless numbers.... Those numbers only say something if we express them in how many libraries of congress we could write in those 4,819,352 hours...

Well great,

the new android is almost on the shelves, but nowhere i read if they are gonna support setting
a proxy for WiFi. Up until now you are unable to make use of a proxy. As far as i can tell this feature
was there in 1.x (with or without the use of 3th-party apps) , but in 2.x it is not possible to set a proxy for
WiFi.

Despite the 344-and-growing comments on http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1273 ,
in which the feature was first reported missing on Nov. 12 2008 (Two thousand and eight!!!, we're in 2010 now)
They have failed to respond or shed some light on this. And looking at:

Status: New
Owner: ----
Type-Enhancement
Priority-Medium
Component-Device
Subcomponent-Wifi

It doens't give me a lot of convidence that they are really looking into it.

Don't get me wrong, WiFi thetering is great and all but compared to making use of a proxy for WiFi,
if you are dependend on a (corporate) proxy due to missing signal from your provider, slow connections
(3G or even G),are at the whim of corporate policy or you have to pay extra for data per mb to you provider,
it's pretty insignificant to have WiFi thetering if you are unable to use the internet on droid at all...

So my 2ct's are first things first, you can't not support proxy for WiFi and push your OS as someting that
can be used in an corporate enviroment...

See that that USB meat grinder wasn't a waste of money....

Guess what, you are actually right. I always thought you wouldn't but i looked it up. The dictionary says:

      steal [steel] Show IPA ,verb,stole, stolen, stealing, noun:
      –verb (used with object)
      1.
      to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
      2.
      to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
      3.
      to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.

The second one "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc) without right or acknowledgment" seems to fit the bill for what is happening in copyright infringement
For the non-english speaking people around here:

      appropriate [adj. uh-proh-pree-it; v. uh-proh-pree-eyt] Show IPA adjective, verb,-ated, -ating.
      –adjective
      1.
      suitable or fitting for a particular purpose, person, occasion, etc.: an appropriate example; an appropriate dress.
      2.
      belonging to or peculiar to a person; proper: Each played his appropriate part.
      –verb (used with object)
      3.
      to set apart, authorize, or legislate for some specific purpose or use: The legislature appropriated funds for the university.
      4.
      to take to or for oneself; take possession of.

And some other thing where does the article mention stealing. TFA only says stealing in the sentence "users can steal or borrow another's IP address"
and again one time in the comments.

But i have to say in my personal opinion it's a grey area. If i download a movie i wasn't planning on buying or watch at the theater who is losing money?

And what if i still watch the movie at the theater with some friends anyway, i do that sometimes cause the experience is more than watching the movie
when going with a friend. Only that is already worth paying for. And at the theater the experience of watching a movie is better than on my 17.3" laptop screen
with crappy sound. I also download movies to watch a couple of scenes and see if the movie is worth paying for in the theater. Because really, the trailers don't
say a damn thing.

Or what if i buy the DVD like the GP says and still download the MKV because the DVD has no subtitles.

I don't think the real problem is the copyright infringers ('pirating; is stealing shit at high seas, http://xelipe.tumblr.com/post/47807318/file-sharing-is-not-piracy-piracy-is-stealing)
it's the movie industry that neglected to make use of a new medium and stuck to their own ass-minded little distribution channel while the world is
screaming for something else.

Well, no mather what you put in the browser it's still a browser. If WebGL, NaCl, HTML5, ajax etc will be in ChromeOS it will be in Chromium and in other browsers. So compared to other OS setups it will be still 'just a browser'

2) Google will iterate and refine GoogleOS much like Android. Right now, it is fresh and something so beyond what people are normally used to, that it seems Novel.

Yes people are used to a fullblown OS , but that doesn't make it any more than just a browser.

3) Everything is moving to the Web as in WebApps. I don't care what anyone says, all Apps given 10 years will be running in a Browser. Not Todays browser, no, Im talking about Browsers that can do 3D (webGL) dirext access to the CPU and GPU (games), very rich and compelling apps using HTML5 and Canvas tag.

Again all browsers will do that so, compared to a desktop OS (in which applications and their possibilities will also grow, see where apps have come in the last 10 years) the things ChromeOS can do will be a subset of the things i can do with a normal desktop OS.

4) Javascript will be 20x faster in 5-10 years, Native Client will be made more portable friendly, which means most all Open Source Libraries will be ported to run with Native Client. Right now, Glibc is being ported ( although just the beginnings and not without many issues), but once GTK QT and the major open Source Libraries are ported to Native Client, they will be able to run in the Browser.

Yeah, but remember that compared to the resources that are available in a normal desktop it will just be slow. Web apps will always be slower than 'native' apps. And the fact that everything will be ported to run in a browser will not make it a distinguishable product, it just makes it a port to an other enviroment.

Solution to the 'Cloud data and privacy' problem. 1) Google already Encrypts the Local SSD drive. So, if people are not buying into it because of fear of data probing, then Google and the OS community will simply Synch the Encrypted data.

That kind of defeats the whole revenue idea of google, making targetted ads based on customer data.

2) The ability to retrieve all your lost data, after a laptop theft or crash, and then ReSynch is a Huge convience. Anyone will agree to that.

Yes it is, agreed, but you can do that with a desktop OS connected to the internet. what's new?

3) anyone that says, 'Well someone can still decrypt any encryption. Well, if that were the case no one would be doing online banking due to all the TLS and SSL problems. No, it just gets fixed and we move on. If the Internet disappears tomorrow, I think the economy would suffer, so people are using personal data on potentially hackable mediums, already. Plus, if Google I seriously doubt Google will be trying to hack into peoples private synched, and encrypted data. If so, lawsuit!

Well i personally think everything you do online is inherently less safe than things you do offline. If you want your data 100% safe store it on a computer disconnected in a safe. Else it's just a matter of risk assesment. I don't mind storing my data online because i think the risk is smaller than what my data is worth if stolen. But more than that it's just a hassle to store everything online. It's slower and it always will be slower. And the things i can do will always be a subset of a normal OS.

In short: ChromeOS will always be a subset of an desktop OS, and that's fine. Personally for me, i would applaud it for some family members of mine, the less they potentially can break they less they will break. And they don't do anything more than write the occasional letter or browse the internet/read their mail.

I had a look at google Chrome through virtualbox, and i think that the media is a bit to eager with the "ChromeOS: the next Win7 killer???" headlines. If you look at it that way, i think it's definatley not. It's not a replacement for any current desktop OS. And me thinks it's not intended that way. It's just a OS with everything stripped but the browser. If you just need a browser, it's OK. If you want something besides a browser it's not sufficient. So for a netbook it suits fine i think. Maybe even for joe-sixpack on a regular PC, but as soon as joe-sixpack wants to do anything more than browsing ChromeOS is not enough. It's comparing apples and oranges when you compare it with any regular desktop OS. Maybe the classification InternetOS instead of desktop OS (although i don't think google ever said it was) would be better....

Well heck, i have to admit that if they cause the next big one, and it is as big as the headline said... At least they do evil in a really grand way, not the sloppy: 'oh we forgot to fix critical bug x last year....' , but destroy one of worlds biggest cities to shut out some minor competition... well got my respect :-)

Fine with me, but only if you implement Windows as a digital hardware circuit you can patent it. As long as it's just text in an editor you get copyright...

An Ark... I would like to see they patent that one...