Yes, working systems (eventually) get delivered. Show me one that came in close to budget.

If Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Cisco, Intel and AT&T stood together and told the US government to fuck off (as they are obliged to to), I think the shoe would be on the other foot.

Yes, a National Security Letter may do so. We have no way of knowing, so have to assume the worst.

This will continue until there is independent oversight of the security apparatus. And by apparatus I mean all three branches of government.

If the US, the most developed country in the world, with all its advantages of a functioning economy, education system, infrastructure, mineral and agricultural wealth, moderate climate and fundamental rights, cannot compete with the rest, things have come to a sad pass. The America war cry goes up "It's not fair!" and the kind of corporate shenanigans we deplore are now to be deployed on a global scale - protecting a doddering and clueless incumbent from the nimble upstarts, to the detriment of the common man.

If you wouldn't believe Tim Cook, why would you believe anyone else from Apple? They might be able to provide a better technical description of precisely why Apple can't access your information, but does that really matter as to whether or not what they're claiming is true?

Of course not, because there was no "contract" for a single provider of all tablets. There should not be a "contract" for delivery of space cargo either. NASA is doing it wrong! Instead of "picking a winner" they should be building a competitive market. Each delivery should go to the low bidder for that delivery on that date.

Tolchock the starry dedoochka AT&T!

The thing is, the doctor did give you evidence. He's an expert in the field of medicine, you know of no reason why he would lie to you, and he said that you have cancer. There is also the fact that he is placing his reputation and livelihood at stake—a false cancer diagnosis would probably be ruinous. Even if he declines to explain his reasoning, you can infer that it is most likely based on his extensive medical training. Whether that's enough really depends on how you plan to use the information, and the risk you're taking if it happens to be wrong. If a hypothesis won't affect your actions either way then it doesn't really matter whether you believe it or not. On the other hand, if you're considering radiation or chemo for your hypothetical lung cancer, it might be a good idea to get a second opinion before undergoing treatment.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that we'll strive to develop the techniques and technology that can be used to correct this problem through medical intervention. That ability would go a long way towards being able to cure several other hereditary diseases as well. Perhaps being able to meddle with our own genetics will end even more poorly, but we'll likely learn something along the way.

It's not arbitrary at all. A piece of software is a server if it listens for incoming connections, and a client if it establishes outgoing connections. If it does both then it's a peer or node in a peer-to-peer network. A web browser is a client because it establishes connections to web servers. X is a server because it listens for incoming connections from apps (the X clients).

The client/server distinction has nothing to do with which side is closer to a keyboard or local display.

That said, if your "ISP" has a TOS which specifies "no servers", then IMHO you're not really receiving Internet service. The ability to accept incoming connections, and thus to run servers, is an essential part of being connected to the Internet.

Let's think about that one for a minute. With the government, you can complain to the government if they infringe your rights—and they may say that the Constitution gives them permission to do so. With Comcast or any other private corporation or individual, you can complain to any suitable arbiter (even the government if you so choose), and the private entity has no excuse. They don't have a Constitution supposedly granting them permission to infringe your rights under any circumstances. In terms of rights, you're on even ground, and if it comes down to force it's far easier to stand up to a corporation like Comcast than a massive entity which has its own military, recognizes the authority of no higher court or arbiter, and is falsely attributed a veneer of legitimacy by far too many of your complacent fellow-citizens who will assume that you're in the wrong simply for resisting authority, regardless of the situation.

One of them isn't Xerox, which is still a valid trademark. Most people say "photocopy" as the generic term. I have seldom heard "Xerox". I don't ever recall anyone using "Google" as a generic verb for search, as in "I googled for it with Bing."

So what if he really didn't find anything? Why should someone be obligated to report a crime to the criminals before reporting it to the public? Car analogy: You see someone stealing your car, and call the police. The police arrive and arrest the thief. When the case goes to court, the judge throws the case out, because you didn't try to negotiate with the thief before calling the police.

That's also the time frame when MOST people I know became disinterest / disenchanted with the new music coming out, and reverted to listening to older material instead.

I'm not saying the ease of "pirating" music with digital tools doesn't contribute to loss of music sales. It MAY (but the ease of BUYING tracks has exponentially increased too, as well as a reduction to nearly zero in costs of distribution to people -- so I'm not sure).

But quite frankly, we've regularly witnessed trends in popular music that are long overdue, here in the 2000's. As just a random few I can think of off the top of my head? We had the "rise of the alternative girl bands" (Bjork, Sarah McLaughlin, Poe, Fiona Apple, PJ Harvey, Mazzy Star, etc. etc.) in the 90's. We had the brief burst in popularity of ska and neo-swing type music (Mighty Mighty Bosstones, Cherry Poppin' Daddies, etc.). Obviously, we had the huge effect of the Seattle grunge scene. Before that, we saw a rise in popularity of "modern country" and line-dancing, the era of Heavy Metal in the 80's, and a period where rock/rap fusion was popular. So what's really happened along these lines in the 2000-2014 time period?

Your music library WILL contain all of the stuff you choose to put in it. That's not going to change, because that's pretty much the POINT of it!

What we've got here are a bunch of whiny people who dislike U2, throwing fits over the fact that their latest album is now a part of their collection despite not wanting it there. Well..... so what? How does this really affect you in a negative way, in the grand scheme of things? You never have to add a U2 song to a custom playlist. It doesn't delete any of your other music you already have, or prevent you from adding something new that you want. It cost you absolutely nothing. And because of the way iTunes works, you don't even have to use any disk space keeping the downloaded tracks on your Mac or iOS device. You can delete them all and it just leaves a "marker" in the cloud, saying you have the ability to download it any time.

Heck, if THAT is so intolerable? Consider exporting your music library to a standard format like MP3 (iTunes gives you the ability to make an MP3 version of any of your songs by right clicking on them, even) - and use a different program as your music manager. You could still purchase new stuff via iTunes if you wanted, and just export a copy to the player you actually use.

As I understand it, this whole "promotion" cost Apple hundreds of millions of dollars to pull off -- and was likely only something negotiated courtesy of the recent acquisition of Beats and the inside connections they had with the music industry. I really don't think you're going to see this happening regularly.