Please stop drawing a distinction between smartphones and computers (and tablets). They are all computers. Allowing the farce of distinction to survive is a major part of the reason smartphones can be classified as "applicances" and don't have to follow laws about openness and intercompatability.

Interestingly, the word "espionage" actually *does* come from the French "espion," for spy, and "espionage," for spying.

I agree this is heinous, but it's just a symptom of a problem that's beem going on for decades. Why are bank transaction fees acceptable *at all*? Banks used to pay interest for the privilege of using/investing my money while I have it in their bank. I shouldn't have to pay to use what belongs to me, and I don't understand why people put up with it. I personally use baning services that don't charge fees; they exist, why dont more people uae them?

It would be more expensive. I'm guessing the car batteries have a limited lifespan, and loose capacity over time. You have the option of keeping the snow one (it says so in the summary) but you have to pay the difference in value. Using your propane tank comparison, I can fill my propane tank for $11, or swap it for $20. Since I really only need to replace the tank every 5 or more years, a new one costs about $35, and I go through say 3 tanks a summer... Well, do the math.

It's a shame so many other companies have ripped off Apple's innovation in the mobile payment market. The audacity of them, to release stolen copies before Apple even finished thinking up the idea...

What about people that live in the rest of the freaking world? Software doesn't exist only in the USA, so be your ass that the rest of us would never distribute these modifications. Meaning they would be widely available online. Meaning the whole idea is stupid. News at 11, the USA decides to liberate the entire world from rogue libertarian-softo-terrorists.

I would say the better second step would be to, upon request, force companies to delete all the data they have on you, and stop tracking you in perpetuity.

Ok. How about the ability to keep one human alive for one day? Therefore, food, water, shelter, and heating (or cooling) have inherent value. As does anything that can be directly converted into one of these things, like seeds, hydrogen & oxygen, electricity, wood, bricks, and so on.

Unless you want to argue that human life has no value, in which case I can just shoot you and win the argument.

It seems that *you* expected it...

In person protests also affect commerce. Last summer, in Montreal, there were weeks of protests with hundreds of thousands of people clogging the entire downtown core. It was incredibly disruptive for a whole lot of businesses.

Could you link me to these installers? I'd love to whip out my old copy of SMAC.

This is what we call synecdoche -- a part referring to the whole. By speaking of the car, I mean the person driving as well as the mechanical car -- speaking of either separately in this case would be meaningless. Likewise, by speaking of a corporation, I mean the people that make up the corporation, acting as the corporation. Yes, you are technically correct in saying that a car has no moral agency, but without a moral agency (a person) it cannot drive. A corporation cannot make money without people running it. When I say "Apple are jerks," I mean, "the people running Apple are jerks." When someone says, "Apple's sole responsibility is to make money," they are really saying, "The sole responsibility of the people working for apple is to make money." This is not true. Those people have moral responsibility, including when they act on behalf of Apple.

Not at all -- I think it's quite possible to be profitable and ethical. But this argument is often (as in this case) used to justify a corporation screwing over everybody whi isn't a shareholder (in this case, the environment, by producing e-waste).

Apple cares about making as much money for its shareholders as possible. Period.

That is the purpose — the only purpose — of a business.

I seriously never understood this line of reasoning. Because they have a responsibility to their shareholders, corporations are somehow exempt from all moral and ethical responsibility in every other way? That's like saying, "A car's sole purpose is to drive. So it doesn't have to slow down for pedestrians in crosswalks."