I'll just quote the first sentence from that article:

"Despite intensified competition from fierce rivals including Microsoft Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Apple Inc.’s iTunes store in 2010 managed to hold onto its dominance in the U.S. market for movie electronic sell through (EST) and Internet video on demand (iVOD), new IHS Screen Digest research shows."

Wait, one more quote from the 3rd paragraph:

“The iTunes online store showed remarkable competitive resilience last year in the U.S. EST/iVOD movie business, staving off a growing field of tough challengers while keeping pace with an dramatic expansion for the overall market,” said Arash Amel, research director, digital media, for IHS. “Apple faced serious competition from Microsoft's Zune Video and Sony Corp.'s PlayStation Store, as well as from Amazon and—most significantly—Wal-Mart."

Remember, when you're talking about a monopoly, you're talking about competition in the market. If iTunes has managed to attract a majority of consumers in a market rife with competition, then one can only cry monopoly after digging up anti-competitive practices that specifically play a larger factor than normal consumer choice.

Interestingly, I spent a few years as a vegetarian and then vegan, and the concept that it was wrong to kill animals for food was never a convincing argument for me. I have issues with how certain industries generally go about it in the USA (along with many, more practical reasons), but the actual raising and slaughter of animals has always seemed like something one just feels is wrong or doesn't. It makes for an interesting ethics topic, because how can one debate the ethics of something that a person simply believes or not.

Or for any purpose other than procreation. Any Christian attack on homosexual sex is pretty much an attack on modern heterosexual sex, unless you adhere to the obvious strict guidelines.

It also says you shouldn't do a ton of things that are listed as being just as bad, and many of these things are pretty much universally ignored. It's true, accepting homosexuality as who one is makes it unlikely to repent the sin incurred, but not anymore than ignoring any one single thing listed as a sin or wrong (one is unlikely to repent for actions, or lack of actions, never brought into the conscious mind as a source of damnation).

One thing seems likely to me: a truly omnipotent God would unlikely ever be understood or interpreted by mortal minds like ours. To support your point about God changing his mind on humans deserving death, well, he could have done a bit more in that area.

The death and ressurrection of Jesus is a pretty important facet of the Christian faith. I think you'll need more than a few passages from one book to argue your point, especially when so many other explanations for Jesus having to die on the cross have been debated well. Are you dismissing the "original sin" as relevant to the topic? What about the fact that humans all, even after Jesus died as a sacrifice, still die (a post-Adam/Eve phenomenom, which could easily have been changed back by God after the death of Christ). What about any number of other suggestions backed by picking out statements made by other biblical figures in other books?

I'd be more interested to see an app that installs a button that, if pressed, pledges the user's support to the anti-christ after the second coming (or whatever the exact specifics for the unforgivable sin are, it's been a while since I've read the details).

Debates pitting logic against god or arguing against god are one thing, but I wonder how people would respond to an app that, within the confines of "accepting" Christianity, commits the most horrendous act possible as outlined in the faith (in one click no less!).

Yes, except the opposite of "as opposed to".

As they should be. Just as vendors for other platforms should be happy to release solutions that work for theirs.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the gear you "want" them to have can easily be the gear you "expect" them to have. When running heroics, I'd sometimes get complains that I didn't have any "tier" gear or other epic dungeon drops (other than my tanking sword and shield). Everything else I'd wear my area gear, with the shoulders switched to PVP shoulders filled with tanking gems and enchantments (switched a few other things out for enchantments also). The point being, I had spent the time gaining PVP points to get duplicate items and gem/enchant them for tanking, during a periods were many others would hang around Shat and try to get a group that would carry them through in the hopes they'd get some gear out of it.

Properly researched and with the right gems & enchantments, I comfortably tanked all the heroics and a few 25 player instances BEFORE I started to see any of the "expected" warrior tank gear drop (and when it rained it poured, thankfully). During that period, though, there was often someone in a pug who'd criticize me about my choice in gear, and it was always someone who'd never played an end game warrior (and they were usually pretty green to end game).

For example, I never told a priest or a warlock how to properly gear and spec (unless that player was joining one of my arena teams), as I felt I had no lecturing someone about a class I didn't play. If a pug kept wiping, it was easy enough to tell where the problem was, and I'd try to commit that player to memory as someone not to group with again.

As a main tank (retired), my life would have been absolute hell without at least a decent aggro meter. DPS is a fine thing to measure, but in the actual boss fights threat is the more important aspect. Especially for fights where tanks have to be rotated in and out, not knowing how much threat individual players were generating would have lead to the (stronger) DPS holding back most of the time, and occasionally getting one-shotted other times.

Sure, as a warrior I could always intercept then challenge when a DPS accidentally (or idiotically) pulled aggo from whichever tank is up, but if tanking that specific boss wasn't my roll at the time it would throw things into chaos at least. With a threat meter, we were able to remind people to ease up a bit when they threaten to draw aggro, and at the same time get a better picture of which tanks aren't performing as well as they should be.

Get a movement within their customer base and employ the classic school scenario where a rule doesn't work if it has to be applied to everyone. Start filing tens of thousands of DMCA take down notices for suspected violations. If their policy is as described, cutting service to that many people will put a direct stop to it.

You have it backwards; the music industry equivalent of Blockbuster already went out of business: Tower Records. It's Blockbuster who should have taken notice.