Most (not all) antitrust legislation is aimed at preventing monopoly exploitation of alternate markets. There is little evidence that Apple has any sort of monopoly unless the category is defined so narrowly as to be useless.

Well, there is some prior case history on this. Back in the late 90's, MS was found guilty of exploiting a monopoly with Windows with regards to Netscape and Internet Explorer. They used their market position with Windows to push IE onto Windows Users. Never mind the fact that alternative operating systems existed. Never mind the fact that people COULD install other browsers once they installed Windows. They looked at the market space that was defined by Windows programs, and looked to see if MS was abusing that space. It's not a far fetched idea to translate that to the iPhone issue. Apple is locking off their internal market space by using what is a monopolistic hold on their operating system. The difference here, is that people CANNOT install competing software from another source than Apple. So in a sense, it is a clearer case than MS lost.

Users are free to choose another device if they feel that strongly about the situation.

And people were free to chose a different OS from Windows. Yet they still found the MS exploited a monopolistic hold on the OS to push IE. Apple clearly does have a monopolistic hold on the iPhone OS (Even stronger of one than MS did). The question is not are people free to choose another device, but are those with the device free to choose another avenue of operation (away from Apple). The average user isn't told that their phone won't run non-Apple approved apps before hand. The average user isn't told "If you don't like these policies, don't buy this phone". They are told "Check out what this phone can do!", and "Look at all these apps it can run!". Not to mention that once they buy the phone, they are locked into a multi-year contract which will cost them money to terminate. So at absolute least, if this is not an abuse of monopolistic power, it is a case of deceptive advertising. They are not presenting users with a fair and complete choice. They are showing one side of it, and then locking down the other. So yes, users are free to choose another device, but they aren't given enough information (without going out and knowing what to look for) to make that choice intelligently.

I still don't see why Apple aren't allowed to set the terms of participation in their program. If you sign up as an iphone/ipod/ipad developer, you know what you're getting into, and you know they can change their rules at any time.

Well, it's quite simple. They are allowed to set the terms of participation. However, I don't think they should be able to change their rules at any time (And/Or enforce them retroactively). If I signed up and agreed to their terms 6 months ago, I would be abiding by their rules to develop in {insert language x here} and convert to ObjC for submission. So I spend 6 months working on my application, only to be told today when I submit that it's no good because they "changed their rules". In my mind, there are few clearer examples of abuse of market position than that. It's an arbitrary rule set out do nothing but exact control (They have reasons why they did it, presumably to stick another knife in Adobe). But it does have significant collateral damage (being the developers who now have lost time because they were following the rules a month ago). And those interests do need to be protected.

Just my $0.02...

They are still around, I've seen them on plenty of playgrounds in Oregon. I use them to demonstrate the principle of conservation of angular momentum, by organizing groups of kids to lean as far out as they can while I push as fast as I can to get it going, then see how it speeds up as everybody moves to the center, and slows back down again when everybody moves back to the outside. It's not just fun, it's Physics! (And yes, I was fully aware that some of the really young children (e.g. 4 year old) participating in this experiment might have gotten hurt. But I didn't care.)

This isn't the first time the German government shows respect to F/OSS:
Matthias Ettrich, founder of KDE was knighted late 2009.

Some German cities announced in 2003 that they'd be moving away from Microsoft, towards Linux. (source)
Munich is one city that I know of that has actively been moving their infrastructure towards F/OSS. (source)

(Disclaimer: I'm not German, I'm just going by what I read on the internet.)

You're wrong! That's not amusing at all!

You're assuming that advertisers would be held to the same limit as users.
Why would they be? After all, they're paying for that ad space.

I get thousands of SSH log in attempts coming from China every day. I also get some from South-Korea, some from Brazil, but none from the US.
Spam is not the only factor to consider.
It certainly DOES make sense to blacklist China in its entirety unless you're doing business with them.

I wish I could mod you higher than +5, you just summed up some of the things that bother me most about the OS that is somehow still the most popular desktop OS in the world.

To anyone using Windows (XP, Vista or 7) right now, go ahead and open up an Explorer window, and type in ftp:// followed by any url.
Even when it's a name that obviously won't resolve, or an ip of your very own local network of a machine that just doesn't exist, this'll hang your Explorer window for a couple of solid seconds. If you're a truly patient person, try doing that with a name that does resolve, like ftp://microsoft.com . Better yet, try stopping it.... say goodbye to your explorer.exe .

This is one of the worst user experiences possible, all for a mundane task like using ftp. And this has been present in Windows for what, a decade?

(Activision-)Blizzard has been trying to get their own piece of the legal game download market through the Blizzard Store.
I think it actually has a chance of taking off. Steam got big through Valve's big titles: Half-Life 2, CS:S and other source engine games.

Blizzard has even bigger games: World of Warcraft and soon Diablo III and Starcraft 2. Those three titles alone can turn the Blizzard Store into a well-known and credible platform.
Once that has happened they can move in the newest Activision titles, instead of offering them on Steam.

Hasn't tech like this already been used to put a younger looking Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator Salvation?

Video clip (may spoil the movie): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY57vJOQIlE

Your sig actually stopped me from modding you down, thanks for showing me the error of my ways. But I do disagree.
Richard Dawkins has written some interesting views on what the definitions of atheism and agnosticism are (check out the paperback of The God Delusion), but that's ultimately just his opinion.
In atheism, just as in agnosticism, there is no canon, no dogmas, no defined set of rules.
In the end atheism and agnosticism are much alike.
It all depends on how convinced you are that there is no God.

Here's my account of, excerpts from, and opinions about the interview.

It's 3,300 words long. (Yes, yes, I know, "TL; DR". :P )

Various statements on the website strongly imply that it is an all-volunteer project. I doubt tax money is funding it.

I don't like the idea of my tax dollars being spent on non-essential services either, but I really don't think that's the case here.

Hundreds of dollars per kg would be pretty sweet. You could put a bunch of people (bulk rate here) in orbit for less than a million dollars apiece at those rates. Unfortunately, current launch costs are somewhere between $5k and $40k per kg depending what you use (Russian vehicles for the lower cost, Shuttle for the higher cost) and how often you use them.

Regarding running config and saved config, some time ago I did an iptables script that would test a new rule chain for a specified amount of time, then reverting back to the previous one. It has saved me a lot of time many times, and actually a couple of times I locked myself out of the machine (that was a remote one, obviously).