I suspect that if it applies in any way, programming itself would be considered the language and the particular programming language you use would be more akin to a dialect.

Not sure if Google is monitoring your posts or if their routing glitched before but doing the search just now gave me pretty much the same results on Google Maps... http://goo.gl/maps/fsfKF

Looks like they're watching. It had been like that for a couple weeks and still was up until the time I posted.

Ask a friend or family with the required cable package for their login info. A more social than technical hack, but it works very well.

We have the relevant package; but Insight won't even acknowledge our login to use the app. They can keep their streams and ad-views if they don't want to make it even half-usable.

I have roughly the same problem. I spend around $140/mo for internet and cable, of which I receive the full NBC suite of channels. However, the app refuses my provider's login information. When I contacted my provider, they just sent me up to an NBC support clerk who told me essentially "Wow, that really sucks." and that was it. There was no recourse, simply re-acknowledging that I had a problem and they would attempt nothing to fix it.

I normally wouldn't be overly concerned about it, probably just a bit flustered, but this is a global event that occurs twice a decade. I feel this should really be something public broadcasters should control, not mega-corporations.

You might want to verify that your provider doesn't have multiple login schemes. My Time Warner franchise has one account for payment and account services "pay express" and another for service access "my services".

The Olympics requires the services credential.

There are too many people making too much money in the US for it to be handed off to public TV.

Out of curiosity, is there just an advertisement for 20 seconds at the beginning of a live stream? Or do they have commercial breaks?

They run every few minutes, it feels kind of random. But they have a very nasty habit of running right at critical moments during the games.

I don't particularly approve of their pricing, but to be fair the book could be downloaded many times over 3G in the future included in that initial delivery cost.

Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it's nice to have these kinds of privacy laws in place. On the other, it seems arbitrary that other similar services for music, articles, locations, etc. don't have to play by the same rules. I don't see video as particularly different from any of them so I think either they should be similarly regulated or the law that applies only to video should be dropped.

What do you mean by this? I've always been able to send and receive texts through Google Voice in Canada, I can also call (only have it set up to call my gmail) using the web interface. What I've never managed to do is activate the app on my android phone to allow my send/receive texts there even if I couldn't do calls without a US phone number.

I don't know that I agree with "frightening". I would guess people watch baseball games on TV much more often than they go to them, thus a question that asks about "watching a ... game" would trigger the more common of the two.

It feels trite to reiterate so many other commenters but I really liked your take on Android development and would like to see more.

Can you recommend some of these games? I've been itching to try some new ones.

The problem is that the rules are broad enough that many sites could be construed to be breaking them leaving you up to Amazon's whimsy in enforcing them.

I think Amazon has made a pragmatic decision here. There are certainly all kinds of wild things on Amazon's servers and I bet they tolerate quite a lot of deviation from their terms of service.

What happened with wikileaks, however, is a extraordinarily high profile controversy. It was material of very questionable legality, and material whose presence has lead to very serious cyber attacks. It is not reasonable to expect any 3rd party host like amazon to defend this "type" of free speech to the point of exposing themselves to huge risks.