Yeah it is a strawman argument. What's your point? It was meant to be. Considering that the term "evil" is whole based on perspective a strawman seems justified to further illustrate my point, that's why I used it. There is not "logical" definition for evil as there is not definition on where "evil" begins and ends. Without defined parameters one can only attempt to define an act based on the other acts categorized with it. Since slaughtering kittens is generally seen as evil I can only conclude that terminating Reader is the same as killing kittens.

I trust you'll note that there are no fallacies in this argument, I checked. However, your rebuttal has a few. Your Black-and-White fallacy that just because Google has "stopped being such a bold defender of the open internet, and open source software" is used to put Google in as " falling in line with general tech-corporate Americana" when in reality that argument paints the situation as one or the other and not simply a business looking at being able to keep good projects open and focus on other projects by terminating some projects. Also, your "appeal-to-authority" fallacy in your statement "Just a couple days ago, a story on slashdot opened with the phrase '...a post-don't be evil google...'" shows that you believe a non-edited public created content system like /. is an authority on subjects such as this, when these are really just people opinions. I can confidently assure you that there is no scientific fact behind the idea that Google is evil or being evil. Lastly, just because people put their time into creating things around something Google gave them doesn't make maintaining that service a requirement for Google and doesn't make the actions of Google or any company or their actions inherently evil for no longer supporting it.

Apparently not.

But how do we define "perfect" materials? And his illustration was with no frame weight and a small child as a payload, not as a commercially viable payload.

I believe the point was that you are using your on knowledge of today's materials to establish a forecast on what is possible in the future. In this is where we find err, since there are likely technologies in the future that could quite possibly create the means for a system like this to work.

So just to be clear, closing down a free to use system like Reader is the same as slaughtering kittens or or forcing people to pay for a new OS just because they upgraded their motherboard, right? I mean Reader didn't cost you anything. I miss iGoogle but I didn't think it was evil when they shut it down. The tech community gets their feather ruffled when a new version of windows comes out or when someone compares iPhones and Androids, I doubt very much that something like Reader is going to have a truly noticeable shock. Google projects come and go. It's sad that the tech community you speak of only notices some of the least useful ones (and by useful I mean there are many other things that fill the roll as good of better.)

Why don't you show us a promise that isn't worthless. Realistically any promise, or word of honor, pledge, etc. that does not have a legal signed contract is technically worthless. Doesn't make your word any less weighty.

Just because a trial is overturned does not make the law void. Just because you feel the innate need to try to call BS on a post you don't want to take the time to understand because you don't like the information in the post, doesn't mean I'm out of line in pointing out solid evidence that the point is in fact valid. Note here what while I'm attempting to have, and fully open to, an adult, logical debate, you're only argument has been "Nuh, Uh prove it," and name calling. Neither of which are logical arguments anywhere except with the possible exception of congress and elementary schools.

First, a link: http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/

This is a good site for documentation of the trampling of said First Amendment Rights. While it doesn't show illegal, it does show "getting arrested for."

As for illegal. In Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland wiretapping and eavesdropping laws have been leveraged to prosecute people for video tapping. While these were over turned by the Supreme courts many time these laws are still used for the arrest or punishment of a citizen and only 38 states have laws that officially declare that it IS legal to record a police officer in the course of duty. I'd link to it, but you obviously don't understand how to use Google to do any research anyhow.

My point here being that, while some states are taking action to allow for technologies to be used in our every day lives, people still need to be aware of the laws of their states and the possible consequences.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I didn't see any need in my previous comment for your tone. I don't know if being a subscriber entitles you to also being a dick, or if you're just having one of those days. If you've ever read my comments, you'd have realized I don't talk out of my ass.

Actually in some states it is actually illegal to record an image of law enforcement. Laws like that could pose serious problems to people with wearable computers.

I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. (and yes, that IS what she said.)

its just been badly executed. Many people I've talked to about this very idea have had the same reaction. We don't want a watch that replaces our smartphone, or has massive computing power (in today's view), but certainly wouldn't mind a watch that, say, could ping a satellite for your location every hour or so and adjust itself to your timezone or download your agenda every night and keep track of your schedule. It certainly beats having to pull out my phone and check my calendar just to see when exactly that appointment was.

There are great reasons to do this, unfortunately, most manufacturers will forget to Keep It Simple.

I think that was his actual point. It's free speech to her if she says it, but not if she has to hear it. Just as it's ironic that free-speech evangelists are for crucifying her for her speech just as she did them. It's like a 7-layer hypocrisy dip.

It is not a crime to rip your CD if there is not DRM or other protection. It is a crime to store the ripped files in a way that they are distributed, such as in a shared folder or over the internet (there are other ways to share them over the internet than P2P) with anyone else. This is the hole in the argument @Jason Levine brings. By sharing his media he is then distributing a copy of those works. So you are correct that format shifting is not the issue here, but rather what happens afterwards, unless the cd contains any type of copy protection.

Do keep in mind though that the RIAA has gone after people for format shifting, (Atlantic v. Howell), and though they have not so far succeeded, all it takes it one.

It's not you're own phone if it's on contract. If you bought it out right then its already unlocked. Unlocking is not jail-breaking or rooting, which modifies the phone's code. Jailbreaking was found to be legal in the case of phones, though not tablets, consoles or other such systems.

Exactly, digitizing your library, either audio or video is, in fact, considered illegal by both groups. The fact that you haven't been sued for it doesn't mean it's not illegal or that they couldn't drop the hammer, it just means that they haven't. The RIAA copyright FAQs make it fairly clear that they have the power to frown upon anything that you don't have exclusive control over. Ownership and possession are not the same thing.

On that note, I feel it should be said that I do not agree with the RIAA, MPAA or any other organization that helps to continue the abusive actions imposed on legal possessors of media, in the forms of DRM or any thing else.