It's incredibly easy to connect to an unsecured wireless network. It's even easy to do it accidentally with many devices and configurations. There's no way I'm aware of to accidentally crack even the poorest wireless security, it requires actual malicious effort, small though it may be. I believe that, in this case, it's reasonable to draw the line at "anything more than nothing."

The analogy doesn't work. First of all, the act of hot-wiring itself requires malicious intent, and a circumvention of reasonable security. Even if you left your keys in the ignition, the only aspect of the crime you could be said to be responsible for would be the theft itself, and since you're the victim in that case, who cares? At worst, your insurance wouldn't pay out due to negligence.

Regardless, reasonable people who don't want their cars stolen secure their vehicle, at least by not leaving the keys in it. And reasonable people (especially who live in an area where it's illegal to run an unsecured wireless network) secure their wireless network. If for no better reason than to avoid dealing with bullshit RIAA copyright claims that have nothing to do with them.

You know, I never did understand that criticism. "Why would anyone buy a 21" monitor? It's just a big 13" monitor!"

Sorry but the accelerated use of plastics and cheap alloys isn't an accident or an improvement in cars.

There is the benefit that a largely plastic car that deforms on impact absorbs a lot of the energy that would otherwise be transferred to the occupants during a collision. I know I'd much rather be in a squishy modern car than a solid steel behemoth if I'm going to crash into something.

Lots of people use their mod points to mean either "+1 I agree!" or "-1 You're wrong, moron!" Sucks, but it's true.

I'm sad to see a very interesting alternative disappear, but:

I find this claim hard to make with such certainty. It's obviously different, but I can think of at least two ways it's not better:

1.) The music you "bought" for web streaming is only available as long as Lala stays open. Corporations are amoral and self interested, and the risk that that ability would be taken away due to any number of reasons was always there. That's not to say that it was wrong or foolish of anyone to take on the risk of using the service, but that risk is present and worth being aware of. Also note that this doesn't strictly rely on Apple being "evil", it was the nature of the arrangement. They could have gone out of business due to non-profitability, or a number of other possibilities. Note that currently, if you buy DRM'd content from iTunes (this does not include music, but does include App Store content), you're in a very similar position with regard to the risk you're choosing to take on.

2.) Streaming music online limits you to those times when you have an internet connection. If your use case for music ever involves playback on a device not connected to the internet, as far as I know, your Lala music is out. This type of case does seem to be shrinking, though.

iTunes of course has complimentary disadvantages: the music is quite a bit more expensive, and hosting, storing, and backing up the files is up to the end user. But you get to keep them forever, even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow, which is a plus

Also, if the Lala business model is really a profitable one, I'm pretty sure someone else will try to do it.

So I'll buy it, and they won't. I'm not about to boycott a product I want because it doesn't have a feature I don't want.

When a product comes out that doesn't let me do what I want, I'll refuse to buy it. Not before. Slippery slope arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me.

Do you really think you know what I want better than I do? Voting with your wallet means not buying a product you don't support. It doesn't mean trying to force other people to conform to your wishes.

Only kind of true. Everything but Opera Mini is a wrapper around WebKit, which is Safari's rendering engine. Opera Mini isn't, but it basically fetches trimmed down, static versions of web pages proxied through Opera's servers. All javascript is interpreted on the servers before it's sent to the phone, which is why it doesn't run afoul of the portion of the developer agreement that forbids interpreters that locks out other browsers.

This isn't a deal breaker for me, but I'd like it to get better.

First of all, I never said the deal never changed. I said the specific things he mentioned have always been impossible, and he must have known that.

Second of all, he's clearly not an iPhone developer, which means the agreement that changed has never applied to him in any way. Only people who agree to its terms have restrictions placed upon them in exchange for the ability to develop. In fact, ordinary iPhone users have no legal restrictions of any kind about what they can do with their hardware, it's just that Apple makes going outside the app store model intentionally difficult. You have to jailbreak your phone to do it, but jailbreaking is not a crime, and violates no agreement I am aware of. If it is, then I certainly don't like it.

You are so very angry that I fear you aren't thinking clearly. I'm trying to be reasonable, but you're frothing at the mouth.

First of all, the specific objections in the comment I replied to have remained constant. He didn't say anything about the terms change. Second of all it's been clear for a long time that the app store is Apple's playground, and that their judgments are often arbitrary and almost universally final. To use anything other than their sanctioned development tools and then pretend you're surprised when they pull the rug out from under you is the real willful ignorance.

Truly, your civility is matched only by your wit.

I see two main reasons for preserving the natural world:

1.) That our reckless behaviour with respect to the Earth could be against our self-interest as a species. We still very much rely on the biosphere to stay alive, yet we don't fully understand it. Every risk we take with respect to it is worth consideration and evaluation. We are capable of doing enough damage to either make existence very difficult, or render ourselves extinct. The Earth itself, and life in general, will probably shrug that off, and that's cool. But I'd like us to stick around for the long haul.

2.) Its destruction offends our sensibilities. Lots of people want some semblance of the natural world external to humanity to be preserved for lots of other reasons, many of which are completely subjective. That's their right.

Actually, that's one of the very few problems you won't have trying to raise plants on Mars, considering it makes up 95% of the atmosphere. Even despite the greatly lower atmospheric pressure, it has more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth.

Of course, everything else you mentioned, along with the lack of oxygen, is pretty accurate

Oh for god's sake. How can you use the same piece of evidence in two places without even reading the abstract of the paper?

That is the title of the cited paper. Often, scholarly papers contain information beyond the content of the title. For example, following the provided link to the article reveals this in the first line of the abstract:

Indeed.

The parent was joking/speculating. CS5 just came out for OS X and Windows. Dropping OS X support in the future would be ballsy, but its biggest effect would probably be keeping people on CS5 for a long time.