I don?t recall if these larger display Android phones are simply expanding the UI elements of if the UI has been tailored for the increased display real estate. For instance, is there an extra button in a row or column for these 4.x? displays?
Usually, yes. That's why the screen real estate is so valuable to some. Most widgets are two lines and 4 icon spaces across or single line and 4 spaces across or 4 icons spaces squares. And most phones are 4 icons and by 4 icons across. This means 2 of the medium sized widgets on each page. That extra size usually gives you an extra line which means two medium sized widgets and a line of icons or another one line widget.
I would have loves that on my Nexus One where I put my facebook, calendar and task list widget on the same homescreen, but would have loved the extra row to put some related icons there. Same constraint on the main homescreen where I put on Beautiful Widgets' weather clock and then have only two rows for widgets which means some stuff I use regularly gets bumped to another homescreen.
A reasonable opinion in line with most of the sane world...except for anonymouse who thinks there's men in black, sent by Google, waiting for him around the corner....
Yes, that's the answer, caricature the people on the opposite side of the question from you. Sorry, that doesn't absolve you of moral culpability if you support them in any way.
Well, do you or don't you? And what's with the distinction of, "conduct in this matter"?
If you support them in any way, you support their, "conduct in this matter."
I haven't read enough to know either way. Whatever, I've read thus far seems to say they'd put together this deal because of the current deadlock you guys have down there and Google's apparent fears that if they didn't strike a deal something worse might emerge (more carrier dominant policies?). I don't know how much truth there is or is not to Google's assertion. If Google's fears are warranted then this deal might be decent. If Google's blowing smoke than the deal does indeed suck. I'd like to know before I can have an informed opinion (though broadly speaking, I really couldn't care all that much because I like the Canadian approach...and what happens here impacts me a lot more). Seems to me that if you solve the deadlock you don't need this deal. If people like you care so much, why is there even mediation by the FCC? I don't know how your system works, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why the US government can't legislate net neutrality into place like many other countries have done? Why does Google feel compelled to do the job of your legislators in the first place? Isn't that a more important question? Seems to be a trend in the US lately of industries writing their own rules.
Either way, isn't this just a proposed idea that would require implementation and oversight by your governmental authorities. I really don't get why people are so worked up over a suggestion on which way to go forward. If you don't like it, why can't you get the FCC to kill it? They put forward a proposed solution. Nobody says it has to be the one that's implemented right?
I haven't read enough to know either way. Whatever, I've read thus far seems to say they'd put together this deal because of the current deadlock you guys have down there and Google's apparent fears that if they didn't strike a deal something worse might emerge (more carrier dominant policies?). I don't know how much truth there is or is not to Google's assertion. I'd like to know before I can have an informed opinion (though broadly speaking, I really couldn't care all that much because I like the Canadian approach...and what happens here impacts me a lot more). Seems to me that if you solve the deadlock you don't need this deal. If people like you care so much, why is there even mediation by the FCC? I don't know how your system works, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why the US government can't legislate net neutrality into place like many other countries have done? Why does Google feel compelled to do the job of your legislators in the first place?
Either way, isn't this just a proposed idea that would require implementation and oversight by your governmental authorities. I really don't get why people are so worked up over a suggestion on which way to go forward. If you don't like it, why can't you get the FCC to kill it?
What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.
Just goes to show while I voice my opinion I am honest....lol. I do agree with Mouse when it comes to Google and Verizon what I would like to know is how is Apple any different?
I would like to also get your opinion on the situation. I buy into the Apple ecosystem just like everyone else here but I don't fool myself into believing they aren't controlling the content that I use for their benefit not mine.
I mean lets be honest, you jailbreak and I root. So clearly we don't except the experience as is, we want to create our own experience.
Certainly Apple is controlling the content for Apple's benefit! Add to that:
-- preserving, as much as possible the User Experience for Apple devices (so they can sell more of them)
-- requiring developers to write apps using the iPhone SDK, thus requiring a Mac and exposing them to the Mac development platform.
-- requiring them to distro their apps through the iTunes app store to further enhance Apple's ecosystem
As an Apple customer and an APPL shareholder I am happy with the situation.
I JailBroke the original iPhone (bought an extra one for that purpose) and the first AppleTV. It was interesting-- had some benefits, but a lot of downsides.
After a while, I tired of the cat & mouse and no-longer JailBreak. As a developer, I can do most of what I want on my devices-- without all the hassle and exposures.
I just downloaded the PalmPre Ares SDK! I am going to play around with it this weekend. I have a suspicion that Palm's OS is an underdog that will soon re-emerge as a major mobile OS competitor.
What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.
Actually a cop out is bitching about something and doing nothing about it. Which is what Jetz is saying. So if you feel that moral then get on the phone and contact someone or write your reps instead of pushing your moral BS here.
When you don't like something you have two options either take real action to try to invoke a change or STFU. Pick one.
Certainly Apple is controlling the content for Apple's benefit! Add to that:
-- preserving, as much as possible the User Experience for Apple devices (so they can sell more of them)
-- requiring developers to write apps using the iPhone SDK, thus requiring a Mac and exposing them to the Mac development platform.
-- requiring them to distro their apps through the iTunes app store to further enhance Apple's ecosystem
As an Apple customer and an APPL shareholder I am happy with the situation.
I JailBroke the original iPhone (bought an extra one for that purpose) and the first AppleTV. It was interesting-- had some benefits, but a lot of downsides.
After a while, I tired of the cat & mouse and no-longer JailBreak. As a developer, I can do most of what I want on my devices-- without all the hassle and exposures.
I just downloaded the PalmPre Ares SDK! I am going to play around with it this weekend. I have a suspicion that Palm's OS is an underdog that will soon re-emerge as a major mobile OS competitor.
.
Correct but at least that is a realistic view of the situation. Not bashing one company for trying to set controls and then saying Apple is controlling content only for our user experience as if Apple gets no benefit out of it other then making us happy...lol.
What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.
I support net neutrality. But again, unlike your Dubya'esque black and white world, I see a little more nuance.
What if Google is right and that the deadlock was allowing the carriers to creep ahead and move toward a non-neutral internet by default? Would that be any better? They could stall forever, and just balkanize the wired internet as well. Would you have preferred that outcome?
This is why, I would like to know how much truth there is Google's assertion that they had to broker this deal to move forward. If they were blowing smoke then I most certainly don't agree with it. If the unregulated status quo was leading to a default option of a non-neutral internet in the US, then Google's stance certainly has some merit.
This cannot be an absolute debate unless it was a question of whether your government was willing to act without industrial consent. If the choice is between a broken status quo and industry moving by stealth towards a non-neutral internet in both wired (which matters far more) and wireless domains (neither of which is protected today in the United States...and yet you don't seem upset about that...where was your rage before this deal on the issue?), and a protected wired domain and a non-neutral wireless domain, then I choose the second option. Unfortunately, those are horrible choices and your legislators should get off their butts regulate net neutrality across the board. But that option doesn't seem to be on the table at all. Ask yourself why that's the case.
Don't blame Google if your government doesn't do its job. At least this deal protects half the internet. That's better than what you have right now. Now demand from your government that they do their job and protect the other half too.
Actually a cop out is bitching about something and doing nothing about it. Which is what Jetz is saying. So if you feel that moral then get on the phone and contact someone or write your reps instead of pushing your moral BS here.
When you don't like something you have two options either take real action to try to invoke a change or STFU. Pick one.
Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.
It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.
I support net neutrality. But again, unlike your Dubya'esque black and white world, I see a little more nuance.
What if Google is right and that the deadlock was allowing the carriers to creep ahead and move toward a non-neutral internet by default? Would that be any better? They could stall forever, and just balkanize the wired internet as well. Would you have preferred that outcome?
This is why, I would like to know how much truth there is Google's assertion that they had to broker this deal to move forward. If they were blowing smoke then I most certainly don't agree with it. If the unregulated status quo was leading to a default option of a non-neutral internet in the US, then Google's stance certainly has some merit. ...
Duh! Of course they are blowing smoke. That's why they are all in favor of exempting wireless, that's why they are in favor of loopholes so big carriers can drive whatever they want through them, that's why they want to emasculate the FCC. And, talk of the "public internet" absolutely implies that you believe in something else. If Google were actually serious about net neutrality, then they would take that stand, and offer a framework that supports it, not this nonsense that tries to sound good by tossing the word open around as much as possible, while gutting the entire concept.
You sound a lot like Google in your response, and it's not what anyone would call straight talking. So, which kind of net neutrality is it that you support? Real net neutrality, or the phony Google/Verizon doublespeak kind of net neutrality. If you support the former, then any action you take to support Google generally, undermines the very principles you claim to support. There is no way to have it both ways here.
Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.
It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.
Lots of talk. Where was your concern for net neutrality before this? I haven't seen too many posts from you expressing alarm on the matter before this deal came out. That's what makes me think you are more concerned with bashing Google than your are concerned about ethics.
For my part, I've written to the CRTC (our FCC like authority) advocating for absolute net neutrality and done the same to my Member of Parliament, well before the issue was fashionable. So please, no lectures on morality.
Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.
It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.
Well mouse I have some bad news for you. Personal morals and ethics are great but you can't force others to have them even more so large companies. Or start bashing people you don't even know on the forum in regards to their morals or ethics.
There is only one way to invoke change and that is get involved. Even in those situations at best you have a 50/50 chance of getting something done.
I dont' know if you live in the US or not but if you do then you know even with Americans jumping up and down and with the vast majority not wanting the healthcare bill to pass it still got passed based on lobbists and a government agenda. So I have little faith with the money Google pumps into the government that they are going to back us on this one.
Actually, you are the one framing things in black and white: all companies are evil, so there is no choice as to more or less evil, so it doesn't matter that I support one, because there is no moral difference between the choices. That's a very convenient framework to avoid any sense of moral culpability in your own mind.
You do know what black and white means right? That you side completely with one side or the other. Either Google is a company completely out to get you or their angels that can do no harm.
If you read my post, you'll see that I said that even though all companies can be considered evil at some level, it varies. That actually makes this a lot less black and white. Google has made these missteps, but yet the services they provide have made my life easier and are generally very good. So dispite them doing all this "evil", I still decide that they're worth my support. If I was being black and white, I'd condemn Google only on the basis of their missteps, regardless of what good they've done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
There you go with more of your black and white reasoning, combined with a dash of misrepresentation on the side. You can try all you want to justify Google's unethical behavior, and your complicity, but, in the end, it's all just rationalization on your part.
And my complicity eh? So now in your mind I'm an employee on Google's board helping to drive the "evil plot of doom" along. Good one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.
If you want any more proof that you're thinking in black and white, then here it is in front of you. I support net neutrality as a whole, but yet I also support Google as a company. According to your logic, because I support net neutrality, I must condemn Google to hang. But yet I don't... Where's the black and white in my thinking?
I like how you deflected the topic at hand (actually, it's off-topic as this thread is about Android jumping ahead in sales) to an attack on what you think my morals are. Especially when it makes you appear that you've been backed into a wall and have nothing of reason to put forth.
You'd make an excellent politician some day. Ever consider running for office? Maybe then you'll actually be able to make a difference instead of sitting here in an internet forum attacking random posts.
I am not saying Google is right. But I am not going to say they are wrong either. Prior to us implementing net neutrality legislation in Canada, our ISPs had begun to clamp down on the wired internet side (throttling torrents for example, using packet sniffing, prioritizing their own VOIP packets, etc.). This is what led to the outrage on the issue here to begin with. Once the hearing began the CRTC saw no reason not to extend the legislation across the board (what helps for us is that our wireless telcos are also our ISPs...which made the implications very clear for the CRTC). So with that experience in mind, I am mindful that Google might be right that no deal at all could mean American ISPs might abuse the wired internet the same way in the US as our telcos did in the past, in Canada. Now I don't know if that's happening. But if it is the case and I was forced to choose and apply net neutrality to only one domain, I would pick the wired over the wireless domain any day.
Maybe you're experience in the US is different and you're wired ISPs are absolute angels who would never do anything like what our telcos did here in Canada, in the absence of any regulation at all. If that's the case, Google is most definitely wrong and you are right.
Well mouse I have some bad news for you. Personal morals and ethics are great but you can't force others to have them even more so large companies. Or start bashing people you don't even know on the forum in regards to their morals or ethics.
Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.
And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.
The evidence is right there in their own words. But, I see you've dodged the issue once again.
Ironically, you're the one dodging the issue by not answering his question. Show us the links that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Google was up to no good.
What you're essentially doing is telling the jury to condemn a man for murder by screaming "Just look at him! He looks like a murderer! Can't you see??!!!"
Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.
And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.
Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.
And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.
Really? How do you know he isn't actually a close friend? Or maybe a coworker? Or maybe a neighbor? Or maybe your boss?
When you're on the internet, cloaked behind a random screen name, you can be whoever you want. As moral or immoral as you want.
The question I would ask is what made you judge/jury/executioner of morals? Did some Super Moral Diety come and appoint you to be better than all of us?
Comments
Did I say I support the agreement or Google's conduct in this matter? ...
Well, do you or don't you? And what's with the distinction of, "conduct in this matter"?
If you support them in any way, you support their, "conduct in this matter."
I don?t recall if these larger display Android phones are simply expanding the UI elements of if the UI has been tailored for the increased display real estate. For instance, is there an extra button in a row or column for these 4.x? displays?
Usually, yes. That's why the screen real estate is so valuable to some. Most widgets are two lines and 4 icon spaces across or single line and 4 spaces across or 4 icons spaces squares. And most phones are 4 icons and by 4 icons across. This means 2 of the medium sized widgets on each page. That extra size usually gives you an extra line which means two medium sized widgets and a line of icons or another one line widget.
I would have loves that on my Nexus One where I put my facebook, calendar and task list widget on the same homescreen, but would have loved the extra row to put some related icons there. Same constraint on the main homescreen where I put on Beautiful Widgets' weather clock and then have only two rows for widgets which means some stuff I use regularly gets bumped to another homescreen.
A reasonable opinion in line with most of the sane world...except for anonymouse who thinks there's men in black, sent by Google, waiting for him around the corner....
Yes, that's the answer, caricature the people on the opposite side of the question from you. Sorry, that doesn't absolve you of moral culpability if you support them in any way.
Well, do you or don't you? And what's with the distinction of, "conduct in this matter"?
If you support them in any way, you support their, "conduct in this matter."
I haven't read enough to know either way. Whatever, I've read thus far seems to say they'd put together this deal because of the current deadlock you guys have down there and Google's apparent fears that if they didn't strike a deal something worse might emerge (more carrier dominant policies?). I don't know how much truth there is or is not to Google's assertion. If Google's fears are warranted then this deal might be decent. If Google's blowing smoke than the deal does indeed suck. I'd like to know before I can have an informed opinion (though broadly speaking, I really couldn't care all that much because I like the Canadian approach...and what happens here impacts me a lot more). Seems to me that if you solve the deadlock you don't need this deal. If people like you care so much, why is there even mediation by the FCC? I don't know how your system works, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why the US government can't legislate net neutrality into place like many other countries have done? Why does Google feel compelled to do the job of your legislators in the first place? Isn't that a more important question? Seems to be a trend in the US lately of industries writing their own rules.
Either way, isn't this just a proposed idea that would require implementation and oversight by your governmental authorities. I really don't get why people are so worked up over a suggestion on which way to go forward. If you don't like it, why can't you get the FCC to kill it? They put forward a proposed solution. Nobody says it has to be the one that's implemented right?
I haven't read enough to know either way. Whatever, I've read thus far seems to say they'd put together this deal because of the current deadlock you guys have down there and Google's apparent fears that if they didn't strike a deal something worse might emerge (more carrier dominant policies?). I don't know how much truth there is or is not to Google's assertion. I'd like to know before I can have an informed opinion (though broadly speaking, I really couldn't care all that much because I like the Canadian approach...and what happens here impacts me a lot more). Seems to me that if you solve the deadlock you don't need this deal. If people like you care so much, why is there even mediation by the FCC? I don't know how your system works, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why the US government can't legislate net neutrality into place like many other countries have done? Why does Google feel compelled to do the job of your legislators in the first place?
Either way, isn't this just a proposed idea that would require implementation and oversight by your governmental authorities. I really don't get why people are so worked up over a suggestion on which way to go forward. If you don't like it, why can't you get the FCC to kill it?
What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.
Just goes to show while I voice my opinion I am honest....lol. I do agree with Mouse when it comes to Google and Verizon what I would like to know is how is Apple any different?
I would like to also get your opinion on the situation. I buy into the Apple ecosystem just like everyone else here but I don't fool myself into believing they aren't controlling the content that I use for their benefit not mine.
I mean lets be honest, you jailbreak and I root. So clearly we don't except the experience as is, we want to create our own experience.
Certainly Apple is controlling the content for Apple's benefit! Add to that:
-- preserving, as much as possible the User Experience for Apple devices (so they can sell more of them)
-- requiring developers to write apps using the iPhone SDK, thus requiring a Mac and exposing them to the Mac development platform.
-- requiring them to distro their apps through the iTunes app store to further enhance Apple's ecosystem
As an Apple customer and an APPL shareholder I am happy with the situation.
I JailBroke the original iPhone (bought an extra one for that purpose) and the first AppleTV. It was interesting-- had some benefits, but a lot of downsides.
After a while, I tired of the cat & mouse and no-longer JailBreak. As a developer, I can do most of what I want on my devices-- without all the hassle and exposures.
I just downloaded the PalmPre Ares SDK! I am going to play around with it this weekend. I have a suspicion that Palm's OS is an underdog that will soon re-emerge as a major mobile OS competitor.
.
What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.
Actually a cop out is bitching about something and doing nothing about it. Which is what Jetz is saying. So if you feel that moral then get on the phone and contact someone or write your reps instead of pushing your moral BS here.
When you don't like something you have two options either take real action to try to invoke a change or STFU. Pick one.
Certainly Apple is controlling the content for Apple's benefit! Add to that:
-- preserving, as much as possible the User Experience for Apple devices (so they can sell more of them)
-- requiring developers to write apps using the iPhone SDK, thus requiring a Mac and exposing them to the Mac development platform.
-- requiring them to distro their apps through the iTunes app store to further enhance Apple's ecosystem
As an Apple customer and an APPL shareholder I am happy with the situation.
I JailBroke the original iPhone (bought an extra one for that purpose) and the first AppleTV. It was interesting-- had some benefits, but a lot of downsides.
After a while, I tired of the cat & mouse and no-longer JailBreak. As a developer, I can do most of what I want on my devices-- without all the hassle and exposures.
I just downloaded the PalmPre Ares SDK! I am going to play around with it this weekend. I have a suspicion that Palm's OS is an underdog that will soon re-emerge as a major mobile OS competitor.
.
Correct but at least that is a realistic view of the situation. Not bashing one company for trying to set controls and then saying Apple is controlling content only for our user experience as if Apple gets no benefit out of it other then making us happy...lol.
What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.
I support net neutrality. But again, unlike your Dubya'esque black and white world, I see a little more nuance.
What if Google is right and that the deadlock was allowing the carriers to creep ahead and move toward a non-neutral internet by default? Would that be any better? They could stall forever, and just balkanize the wired internet as well. Would you have preferred that outcome?
This is why, I would like to know how much truth there is Google's assertion that they had to broker this deal to move forward. If they were blowing smoke then I most certainly don't agree with it. If the unregulated status quo was leading to a default option of a non-neutral internet in the US, then Google's stance certainly has some merit.
This cannot be an absolute debate unless it was a question of whether your government was willing to act without industrial consent. If the choice is between a broken status quo and industry moving by stealth towards a non-neutral internet in both wired (which matters far more) and wireless domains (neither of which is protected today in the United States...and yet you don't seem upset about that...where was your rage before this deal on the issue?), and a protected wired domain and a non-neutral wireless domain, then I choose the second option. Unfortunately, those are horrible choices and your legislators should get off their butts regulate net neutrality across the board. But that option doesn't seem to be on the table at all. Ask yourself why that's the case.
Don't blame Google if your government doesn't do its job. At least this deal protects half the internet. That's better than what you have right now. Now demand from your government that they do their job and protect the other half too.
Actually a cop out is bitching about something and doing nothing about it. Which is what Jetz is saying. So if you feel that moral then get on the phone and contact someone or write your reps instead of pushing your moral BS here.
When you don't like something you have two options either take real action to try to invoke a change or STFU. Pick one.
Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.
It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.
I support net neutrality. But again, unlike your Dubya'esque black and white world, I see a little more nuance.
What if Google is right and that the deadlock was allowing the carriers to creep ahead and move toward a non-neutral internet by default? Would that be any better? They could stall forever, and just balkanize the wired internet as well. Would you have preferred that outcome?
This is why, I would like to know how much truth there is Google's assertion that they had to broker this deal to move forward. If they were blowing smoke then I most certainly don't agree with it. If the unregulated status quo was leading to a default option of a non-neutral internet in the US, then Google's stance certainly has some merit. ...
Duh! Of course they are blowing smoke. That's why they are all in favor of exempting wireless, that's why they are in favor of loopholes so big carriers can drive whatever they want through them, that's why they want to emasculate the FCC. And, talk of the "public internet" absolutely implies that you believe in something else. If Google were actually serious about net neutrality, then they would take that stand, and offer a framework that supports it, not this nonsense that tries to sound good by tossing the word open around as much as possible, while gutting the entire concept.
You sound a lot like Google in your response, and it's not what anyone would call straight talking. So, which kind of net neutrality is it that you support? Real net neutrality, or the phony Google/Verizon doublespeak kind of net neutrality. If you support the former, then any action you take to support Google generally, undermines the very principles you claim to support. There is no way to have it both ways here.
Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.
It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.
Lots of talk. Where was your concern for net neutrality before this? I haven't seen too many posts from you expressing alarm on the matter before this deal came out. That's what makes me think you are more concerned with bashing Google than your are concerned about ethics.
For my part, I've written to the CRTC (our FCC like authority) advocating for absolute net neutrality and done the same to my Member of Parliament, well before the issue was fashionable. So please, no lectures on morality.
Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.
It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.
Well mouse I have some bad news for you. Personal morals and ethics are great but you can't force others to have them even more so large companies. Or start bashing people you don't even know on the forum in regards to their morals or ethics.
There is only one way to invoke change and that is get involved. Even in those situations at best you have a 50/50 chance of getting something done.
I dont' know if you live in the US or not but if you do then you know even with Americans jumping up and down and with the vast majority not wanting the healthcare bill to pass it still got passed based on lobbists and a government agenda. So I have little faith with the money Google pumps into the government that they are going to back us on this one.
Actually, you are the one framing things in black and white: all companies are evil, so there is no choice as to more or less evil, so it doesn't matter that I support one, because there is no moral difference between the choices. That's a very convenient framework to avoid any sense of moral culpability in your own mind.
You do know what black and white means right? That you side completely with one side or the other. Either Google is a company completely out to get you or their angels that can do no harm.
If you read my post, you'll see that I said that even though all companies can be considered evil at some level, it varies. That actually makes this a lot less black and white. Google has made these missteps, but yet the services they provide have made my life easier and are generally very good. So dispite them doing all this "evil", I still decide that they're worth my support. If I was being black and white, I'd condemn Google only on the basis of their missteps, regardless of what good they've done.
There you go with more of your black and white reasoning, combined with a dash of misrepresentation on the side. You can try all you want to justify Google's unethical behavior, and your complicity, but, in the end, it's all just rationalization on your part.
And my complicity eh? So now in your mind I'm an employee on Google's board helping to drive the "evil plot of doom" along. Good one!
What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.
If you want any more proof that you're thinking in black and white, then here it is in front of you. I support net neutrality as a whole, but yet I also support Google as a company. According to your logic, because I support net neutrality, I must condemn Google to hang. But yet I don't... Where's the black and white in my thinking?
I like how you deflected the topic at hand (actually, it's off-topic as this thread is about Android jumping ahead in sales) to an attack on what you think my morals are. Especially when it makes you appear that you've been backed into a wall and have nothing of reason to put forth.
You'd make an excellent politician some day. Ever consider running for office? Maybe then you'll actually be able to make a difference instead of sitting here in an internet forum attacking random posts.
Duh! Of course they are blowing smoke.
Do you have evidence to back that up?
I am not saying Google is right. But I am not going to say they are wrong either. Prior to us implementing net neutrality legislation in Canada, our ISPs had begun to clamp down on the wired internet side (throttling torrents for example, using packet sniffing, prioritizing their own VOIP packets, etc.). This is what led to the outrage on the issue here to begin with. Once the hearing began the CRTC saw no reason not to extend the legislation across the board (what helps for us is that our wireless telcos are also our ISPs...which made the implications very clear for the CRTC). So with that experience in mind, I am mindful that Google might be right that no deal at all could mean American ISPs might abuse the wired internet the same way in the US as our telcos did in the past, in Canada. Now I don't know if that's happening. But if it is the case and I was forced to choose and apply net neutrality to only one domain, I would pick the wired over the wireless domain any day.
Maybe you're experience in the US is different and you're wired ISPs are absolute angels who would never do anything like what our telcos did here in Canada, in the absence of any regulation at all. If that's the case, Google is most definitely wrong and you are right.
Do you have evidence to back that up?
The evidence is right there in their own words. But, I see you've dodged the issue once again.
Well mouse I have some bad news for you. Personal morals and ethics are great but you can't force others to have them even more so large companies. Or start bashing people you don't even know on the forum in regards to their morals or ethics.
Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.
And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.
The evidence is right there in their own words. But, I see you've dodged the issue once again.
Ironically, you're the one dodging the issue by not answering his question. Show us the links that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Google was up to no good.
What you're essentially doing is telling the jury to condemn a man for murder by screaming "Just look at him! He looks like a murderer! Can't you see??!!!"
Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.
And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.
Mouse I have to say you are good for a laugh.
Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.
And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.
Really? How do you know he isn't actually a close friend? Or maybe a coworker? Or maybe a neighbor? Or maybe your boss?
When you're on the internet, cloaked behind a random screen name, you can be whoever you want. As moral or immoral as you want.
The question I would ask is what made you judge/jury/executioner of morals? Did some Super Moral Diety come and appoint you to be better than all of us?