Isn't Saudi Arabia an ally of the US?

Also, have a look at some of the things happening in your own country:
Passengers Cheer as Trans Woman is Stripped and Beaten on Atlanta Train (with video) (May 31, 2014)
Abortion Clinic Escort Opens Up About 'Disgusting, Degrading And Racist' Attacks On Patients (February 21, 2014)
Sikh (mistaken for a Muslim) attacked by racist mob, thanks Good Samaritans who got between him and his hate-filled attackers (after getting his jaw was surgically re-wired) (September 23, 2013) Transgender Woman Dies After Beating in Front of NYPD Precinct (August 26, 2013)
Police: Man damaged Bloomington Planned Parenthood building, cited religious beliefs (April 11 2013)

Please note that I don't support any repressive regimes or groups that enforce FGM or promote sexist behaviours, I am just pointing out that the US is not a shining example of tolerance and social liberties...it would be best if the US focused on sorting out her own problems before pointing fingers at others. Also, thanks for liberating Afghanistan, freeing the Afghans of the nasty Soviet puppet government and delivering them into the hands of the Al-Quaeda and the Taliban is highly appreciated by the entire world!

End users should be able to take the manufacturers to court because they are entitled to the source-code running on the devices they've purchased. I know such an action would bankrupt most end users but that's more a commentary on the prejudicial court systems...

So none of the occupy activists were pepper-sprayed and none of them spent a couple nights in prison and Cecily Mcmillan was not sentenced to 3 months in jail for 'assaulting a police officer' after he 'accidentally' grabbed her breast from behind? Or shall we just ignore all of that and join you in singing the The Star-Spangled Banner?

Oh you mean like what happens in Saudi Arabia? Why are the Americans supporting the Saudi regime again? Any embargoes against Saudi Arabia that I somehow missed? No? Hypocrisy much?

Why the fuck is it America's prerogative to decide what mode of government a sovereign nation can have? America itself is not a shining example of democracy what with it being an oligarchy where the populace enjoys some benefits of what a real democracy should afford them, why aren't you more concerned with fixing your own problems?

Also, the last time the Americans replaced a Soviet propped regime (which in itself was exactly the same as the countless regimes propped by the Americans), the world ended up with the scourge that is the Al-Quaeda and the Taliban and a semi-modern Afghanistan started its slow and steady decline towards stone age.

More recently, replacing Saddam Hussain (not a fan of the guy in any way) has culminated in the creation of ISIS which is terrorizing the Syrians and has succeeded in spanking the American propped Iraqi military and where initially the Americans were yelling bloody murder over the 'humans rights violations by the Asad regime' on how they were treating the 'rebel political dissidents', that reaction has been replaced with confusion and horror so thanks a lot for bringing freedom to the Iraqis.

If the world doesn't trust America and her gift of freedom, most people learn from history and history does not paint America as a force of good like you so fervently believe, its a nation like any other and it is trying to protect the interests of the corporate overlords that fund the political campaigns, general public be damned!

The same people who say that Aaron Swartz made a series of bad choices culminating in the worst possible choice also seem to claim that Edward Snowden should have chosen death (and martyrdom) over seeking asylum in Russia (completely ignoring the fact that the revocation of his passport made any travel plans he had tricky at best, leaving him with little choice but to maybe adopt the lifestyle the character portrayed by Tom Hanks had in 'The Terminal' if he chose not to seek asylum in Russia). Talk about double standards...

God, you are stupid...go look for information on what America has to say to Pakistan about a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and then try pushing your bullshit that America does not force nations and corporations to act in accordance with Washington-approved-policies!

In your opinion, how long is it reasonable for a software developer to provide patches for software?

I do agree that the updates situation in Android-land is/was pretty ugly (it seems to be improving) but expecting patches for a 4 and a half year old product that was obsolete around 2.5 to 3 years ago? If any software developer were to start doing that, they'd have to build the cost into the price of the product (no, it would not be negligible). I personally think upgrading products for 18 months post release (24 months for more recent devices since the hardware spec is not undergoing as many drastic changes) is reasonable and acceptable, you clearly have different expectations so I am curious as to what is reasonable/acceptable as far as you're concerned. Are you one of those people who think the software developer should provide upgrades/patches perpetually (because they have money) or is there any time frame after which the products can be obsoleted?

Kudos, sir...one of the best shows on tv right now :-)

And it's a well known fact that when a conservative needs a brain...oh wait, never mind, conservatives never need brain surgeries

Windows 8 drivers don't work in Windows 8.1...from computers unable to hibernate and taking up to 15 minutes to shutdown because of driver issues, I think its safe to assume that your pants are on fire...

Maemo/Meego was/is Linux based (based on Debian while the GUI, frameworks and libraries are based on the GNOME project).

hahahahaaaa...BasilBrush, taking fanboyism to the next level...Either that or they're a shill, take your pick...

No idea whatsoever about Android (and from the sounds of it, computing in general), yet just have an opinion (always negative) on anything Android/Google related.

More specifically I can't consider Android secure when apps are readily available to root your phone and crack boot loaders by exploiting vulnerabilities that persist for years

I would have modded you insightful but then you had to go and say this...Most Android manufacturers actually facilitate unlocking the bootloader on their devices. As an example, with my old HTC Desire HD, I rooted the phone by following the method laid out on the HTC developer website (HTC Dev, Unlock Bootloader). Also, have a look at the amount of bad publicity Samsung is getting for locking down the bootloader with their Knox implementation, that was the sole reason I decided not to apply the official OTA Android 4.3 update when it rolled around for the S4 GT-i9505 (international version with the quad core snapdragon processor) and went with Cyanogenmod instead.

If I own the device (that is, if the phone is not work-provided or not a contract phone that is still being paid for) and if I want it, I should be able to gain root privileges. There are several things that can not be accomplished without root eg. modifying the hosts file or creating a nandroid backup or removing the bloatware manufacturers like to stick on top of Android etc. Why should I be unable to do that if I am willing to take the associated risks? I have no desire to live in someone's walled garden and I do not want someone else deciding for me what I can or can't do with my computing devices.

...or unfucked android where users actually have control over their devices and software environment which were not constantly engaged in copying everything to vendor servers

With Cyanogenmod, installing Google services was an extra step and if I didn't want to install them, there was no compulsion (I chose to install Google services for the value they add for me since as far as I am concerned, that value out-weighs the privacy concerns, other people are free to choose otherwise and that is exactly how it should be).

Conservatives, no matter where they hail from, have one thing in common; they tend to deny any inconvenient facts. As an example just look at the case of climate change, despite the slew of peer reviewed, (almost) universally accepted (in the scientific community) publications, conservatives still somehow manage to deny climate change as just a hoax to get them to stop using their big ass SUVs and get them into unpatriotic dinky cars...

How do conservatives differentiate amongst themselves? Simple, they call conservatives from any other group (even if the differences are minor, superficial), terrorists and kill em!