91–100 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro-choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".
If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open relative to the iPhone. First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not "approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere. Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are people who c…
Carriers can actually disallow side loading of applications. AT&T seems to be the only US carrier to do this so far and there are work arounds but the power is there for carriers to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open relative to the iPhone. First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not "approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere. Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are people who c…
I can download an APK from anywhere. Out of curiosity, do you (or any Android users reading this) find yourself doing this with any frequency?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android is no longer Google. Android is the carriers. If you play their ball game and buy subsidised through their retail outlets and thus subject yourself to their twisted rules. That's a far call from the Apple side of the equation where regardless of how you acquire the device, short of exploiting security holes, you play by their rules. I have a Nexus One, I bought it unsubsidised up front, it is a truly open dev…
That would be a really, really great avenue for The Right Android to flourish. Except that Google discontinued the Nexus One. There just aren't sufficient financial incentives for an unlocked, un-fucked-with Android phone, bundled with rainbows and puppy dogs, to come to market. So if even Google won't stand behind that approach, who will? The fact remains that 99% of Android devices will ship because a carrier decre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android is no longer Google. Android is the carriers. If you play their ball game and buy subsidised through their retail outlets and thus subject yourself to their twisted rules. That's a far call from the Apple side of the equation where regardless of how you acquire the device, short of exploiting security holes, you play by their rules. I have a Nexus One, I bought it unsubsidised up front, it is a truly open dev…
That would be a really, really great avenue for The Right Android to flourish. Except that Google discontinued the Nexus One. There just aren't sufficient financial incentives for an unlocked, un-fucked-with Android phone, bundled with rainbows and puppy dogs, to come to market. So if even Google won't stand behind that approach, who will? The fact remains that 99% of Android devices will ship because a carrier decre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro-choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".
If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.
Healthy Forest Initiative - opens up more parks to the timber industry
Patriot Act - Who would dare say they are against Patriotism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro-choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".
It certainly wouldn't be accurate to call most people on that side of the debate "pro-abortion." A lot of them don't like abortion for various reasons, but believe it's the woman's choice. I agree that "pro-choice" is loaded, but it's less euphemistic than "pro-life," which really does just mean "anti-abortion."
Well, it's a legal debate. The argument is about the legal issue shorthanded as "abortion", no? In which case I can understand why someone would call "pro-choice" the pro-abortion side.
Sounds awfully familiar. Didn't they learn anything from the desktop wars in the 90's?