HTC Desire: the good and the bad.


Just bought an HTC Desire and these are what i think are good and bad about it.
I am comparing my experience with Desire against my over 1 year of iPod Touch use.
My conclusion is Desire is probably the best phone i can buy right now.

The Good
-Open source – which means Steven Jobs is not going dictate how you use the phone.
-much better control over just about every aspect of the phone (connectivity, GPS on/off, etc).
-Better customization options
-Allow easy access to your phone’s storage via you computer.
-Unified notification under one bar.
-Better App install process – it acually tells you what area will the app have control over.
-Faster Wifi
-better automatic typo correction
-Faster web browser
-Support Flash
-Better Google service integration – means much better Google apps
-Better setup at initial use.
-Physical keys means more screen space for content.
-Widgets that let you do lot of things leaving a home screen.
-Good HTC customer service.
-Small in size when compare to iPhone
-Bigger screen.
-Home screen leaping.

The bad.
-Not ergonomic when typing under landscape mode (asymmetric along the horizontal axis)
-Poor multi-linguol input support.
-Except for Google Apps, almost all Android feels inferior to iPhone
-inferior cut and paste function
-No obvious ways to shut off apps
-Moving typing target not as good.

In conclusion, Desire still need some minor adjustments, but overall its probably the best phone for me.

Is it legal to be unethical?


Imagine that you want to make a bet against a sports team, say the New York Yankees. The Yankees have had a strong run, but, poring over the data, you have come to the conclusion that they’re going to start losing. So you go to a bookmaker (in a district where bookmaking is legal, of course) to place a bet. The bookmaker now looks for someone to take the other side of this bet. Once the other party is found, the deal is made. That, in essence, is the transaction that took place in 2007 regarding the future direction of the American residential-housing market, in which Goldman Sachs acted as the bookie, and which the Securities and Exchange Commission now charges was “fraud.”

– Fareed Zakaria (full article.

Read Michael Lewis’s take as well.

So the question i have is, is Goldman Sachs (GS) obligated to inform Collateralized Debt Obligations buyers that they are about to buy a “shitty deal”? is the role of GS (in this context) suppose to be a impartial provider of a market for people to trade risk or are they are more like agents who owes their customer certain duties of diligence?
I am guess is that its either the former or GS’s role was simply undefined.
whatever it is, GS’s action dont sound very ethical (base on my very limited grasp of the law and what actually happens). which begs the title question – is it legal to be unethical?
hmmm… maybe MBA oath should have legal implication for clear violators and all managers of significant power should take it.