I don't know why *none* of these are getting reamed, but Chrome? It collects data and stores it *on your local machine.* It doesn't route every request through Google.

All well and good, but how would any of the above be threatened by allowing you to download third-party apps?

No one would care if it weren't for the fact that you have to "jailbreak" your phone in order to do so, and that Apple has expressed that it wants jailbreaking to be illegal, and short of that, they tend to do everything in their power to prevent jailbreaking from working with every update.

Or, take android. I could stay within the official Google store, though I agree that it doesn't seem to be as well-policed as Apple's App Store. But I can also install third-party apps, even entire third-party app stores. I can even download third-party remixes of the OS itself. The fact that Google's app store isn't as well-policed as Apple's has nothing to do with the fact that Apple forces you to use their app store or hack your own fucking phone, while Google gives you a choice.

Aside from the fact that he was quoting someone, I don't see how you can possibly interpret his comments this way.

It seems simple enough. He doesn't particularly wish ill of Steve Jobs. He'd much prefer, say, a quiet retirement to death or degeneration. But one good consequence of this is that Steve Jobs is not still working to turn every generic computing device into an iOS-style, approved-apps-only device.

Now, granted, this is almost certainly the wrong thing to say as a political movement, but I don't see anything wrong with the contents of the remark. It just could've been stated a little bit more tastefully.

And frankly, I'm sick of every even mildly relevant person becoming a saint when they die -- we remember the good and forget the bad. I have to imagine that if Glenn Beck had died while he was still an anchor, it would've immediately become politically incorrect to criticize him.

This.

I mean, if it was actually for the purpose of deposing Hussein, then well done, mission accomplished, but holy fuck that cost a lot of lives and made a lot of enemies for such a petty goal.

What I thought it was about was WMDs. What most of the US public thought it was about was stopping terrorism -- a majority of Republicans, in particular, don't understand that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are two different people, and that Hussein had less than nothing to do with 9/11.

Huh. It doesn't help that there's their signature on the contract with mine?

George disagree. javajavajavajavajava...

Depending on how thorough the company is, the SOP with paper is to just go through the document and strike (with a pen) the stuff you don't agree with, then sign it and hand it back to them. Chances are, they won't notice. Sometimes they notice and don't care. Very rarely, they notice and do care.

When it comes up, however, if they signed it too, then you're in the clear. If they didn't read your modifications, they're no better off than if you didn't read the contract to begin with.

The problem is whether anything like this could be an acceptable way of modifying a contract. It seems to follow a similar principle -- if the service in question isn't expecting it, then you modified the contract and they agreed also, so you win. But at the same time, unlike paper, there's no reasonable expectation at this point that the server will notice these headers, and if we either insist on some acknowledgment from the server that they like those headers or wait till this is well-known enough for services to adapt, then you'd be right and they'd be unlikely to accept any changes.

If that's really the case, I'd just mark the Windows partition bootable. Grub doesn't care. However, the DOS MBR can only boot when you only have a single partition marked bootable.

Still, I'm pretty sure my Linux partition was the bootable one... Oh well.

Is it that it never asks you to install, or that you get an error when you install?

It is, somewhat. But as much as I despise Flash, I'd still prefer that to a native client for Linux, also. I don't see why I should trust your service with local access to my machine just to show me a movie.

Or, for that matter, people who buy Windows with the device because it's cheaper that way, so they can dual-boot?

I like Linux. I use Linux as my primary OS, and I bought my most recent laptop with Ubuntu preloaded. I also like being able to reboot, fire up Steam, and just play a game when it doesn't have a Linux port.

It seems to me that the major Android manufacturers have been introducing unlocked bootloaders lately.

Most likely incompetence, yes. I use grub as my bootloader, and had no real issues installing or upgrading Win7. I assume I have SP1, given that I tend to apply most updates immediately.

PuTTY is a better SSH client, at least on Windows, than Cygwin's SSH.

YTMND launched in 2001. LZW expired in 2003.

Fair, though I think the same applies to most options here. I mean, HTML5 at all is a non-starter if they insist on running IE on XP, for example. Somehow, I think a codec provided by Google is one of the safer things you could possibly ask an admin to install -- certainly safer than, say, Flash.

Citation? Wikipedia lists Symbian and WP7, but not Android, iOS, or any game consoles. The only reference I could find for Silverlight on Android was something about the Moonlight team doing it, and if it's just Moonlight, then there's exactly as much Silverlight support for Android as there is for Linux -- which means none of the DRM.

Are you sure that's not just a native Netflix client for these platforms?