One of the things that I looked for this most recent time around was a phone that didn't feel like a brick in my pocket, and make my keys smash into my leg. That phone does some cool stuff, but it's darn near a laptop. No thank you.

IMHO as a long term member of the software engineering community, I think that you're covered and can reasonably get out. Your previous employer is greedy, and wants more of a good thing.

Since you're part of a development effort and may have a body of unique knowledge, it would be a good idea to offer to help them transition in a new person to replace you, and to be willing to answer questions they might have on a contract basis after you've left. This is really up to you, though. You're not required to do this, and if they get mean or greedy about it you should definitely cut them off.

This is no more than we can expect from employers these days. We get our two weeks severance and we're out the door, and we consider ourselves lucky to get that. You may want to consider any personal relationship you have with the management, but professionally speaking, I think you're doing just fine.

Not exactly. The demand for alcohol had significantly increased during prohibition, but the ability to produce it en mass was eliminated because of the order that all equipment for the creation of alcoholic beverages be destroyed. The alcohol producers had to rebuild their infrastructure from scratch, including their distribution networks. A lot of the alcohol producing companies and families came back into the business, but a lot of them didn't. It was an unusual case of a new field where huge growth potential was available just from out-competing the other alcohol producers. They hadn't had time to start considering OTHER competitors yet.

I've studied the issue extensively, and don't believe that this is the case. Alcohol as a legitimate industry was severely decimated by prohibition in 1937, and wasn't in much condition to field lobbyists.

The primary people who showed up at the hearings for it were the producers of nylon (DuPont) and the owners of vast logging interests (Herst). There was a significant push by those who enforced prohibition and were looking for something else to enforce (Anslinger), but it would appear that Anslinger was actually backed by the DuPont family in his efforts.

That doesn't mean that it its illegality isn't currently promoted by the alcohol interests. The tobacco interests have actually been in the forefront, and they seem to own trademarks on various brand names like "Maui Wowwie" and "Acapulco Gold". Mostly, though, it's supported by politicians looking for something to be reputably against when running for office.

"by their own accord" isn't as black and white as it sounds. Microsoft doesn't do anything without market pressures. I'm certain that no single factor was entirely responsible for this decision, but I'm also certain that Microsoft didn't wake up one day and say "Hey, I'm tired of doing whatever I want. I think I'll spend fifty million or so to follow someone ELSE's standards."

Of COURSE you need to buy it. It doesn't suck nearly as badly as Vista! Isn't that a feature in and of itself?

"Oh, wow, maybe people won't just buy whatever crap we try to shove down their throats. This is going to take a bit of rethinking of our strategy..."

Sorry, couldn't resist. I understand that the automobile industry is going through the same realization. We can hope that a few others might get the clue...

Just because I logically couldn't doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to try, especially if someone else was footing the bill for my efforts.