Sandboxing, Apple has argued, limits the resources applications can access and makes it more difficult for malware to compromise systems.

I think everyone argues that sandboxing limits the resources applications can access and makes it more difficult for malware to compromise systems. Well, at least for a fully functional application sandbox.

Apple includes the Magic trackpad (in addition to the keyboard) which is probably the best input device for Mac OS X there is, a 13×11cm multitouch trackpad made from the same material as the trackpad on their laptops, it is well worth its $69 price tag if bought separately.

That was a rhetorical question by the way. It is not my intent to waste your time and energy to answer those.

Your logic doesn't hold together. The intermediary matters. If I point a gun at a person's head and pull the trigger, I've "influenced" the bullet to kill the person, but I'm the one responsible for the death; neither the gun nor the bullet is capable of judgement and cannot be held to blame.

On the other hand, if I merely say that the world would be a better place with that person dead, I may influence some listener into killing that person. My speech has indirectly caused someone else's death. But this time I'm not culpable; the other person is not an automaton, they have the capacity to make their own decisions, and I am not responsible for them even if they got their bad ideas from me.

Of course there are grey areas; perhaps I have some authority over the second person and perhaps I'm in the habit of giving orders by making offhand remarks like that. In that case I might be culpable, both morally and legally. This decision says the prosecutors have to demonstrate that this is the case.

Yes, it does in fact hold together, it might not seem like so if one ignores how the human cognitive system works, while we would like to have black and white laws and rules that governs our behaviour we can not because our perception and actions in this world are subjective and never black and white.

Our actions do indeed influence others, even when we have no power over them. This is why commercials work. This is why branding works. This is how fanboyism is formed. This is how religion is based, it is all just speech that influences others.

Here is the fact that is the hardest to account for in this discussion, you have problem with it and so do I: It is never a single discrete event that triggers something, it is always a series of events, and if people (as have been shown again, again, and again) does not take responsibility for their actions (like speech, just look how much lies are spewed at all levels of society) then is it not necessary to do something that forces responsibility? I do not claim to know the best response, but I do feel like something has to be done.

Problem is, most (as in almost everyone) can not choose to be influenced or not be influenced. There are so many mental processes that we are not in control of that governs our perception and actions that we just can not. For example: It is easier to not be influenced to text than images. Ignoring our mental processes that we can not control there would be no difference, but we have to take subconscious cognitive processes to be able to understand that we are not fully in control of what we are influenced by and what we can ignore.

Also, not everyone is a rational person, take for example the assassination attempt in Arizona, it likely happened because there are indeed easily influenced people in this world. Even if that is only 0.001% of the population, that would make it over 3100 persons in a country like USA. Would it be an acceptable risk to suffer to know that there are 3000 persons in this country that would be easily influenced by a public speech suggesting that someone should be killed?

Once again, this is not a perfect representation of my own beliefs in regards to free speech, I just happen to think that it is not always as clear cut and black and white as some people (you are not included in that group) make it out to be. I can for example guess that a sizeable number of Slashdot users were/is bullied in school or know someone who was/is and it is not a pleasant thing to hear derogatory statements, malicious gossip and other verbal abuse almost every day during your youth. No amount of "this is free speech, they should be allowed to say whatever they want" is going to make the victim feel any better.

I'll take a guess, the following is not reflecting my personal philosophical or political point of view on the subject though These are however my thoughts on the matter:

We have laws against negligence where if some person fails to take proper precaution to protect the safety of someone else, the negligent person can be found guilty.

We have laws that require us to follow certain security standards (e.g. radiation, pollution, tire pressure, how bridges should be built, fire protection) that protects someone against the person responsible for the action. The responsible person can be found guilty if these security standards have not been followed.

Then, we have the philosophical question: Can speech influence behaviour?

Most persons, especially those in politics and media would say yes, definitely. If we can agree that one person's speech can influence another person's actions, can we then come to the conclusion that one person's speech can put a third person (or her/his possessions) in danger? If we think that the answer to that question is yes then the natural question to follow up is: Are we allowed to put another person (or her/his possessions) in danger?

No, I won't spare you that, because Europeans did in fact war among themselves, they had much more nations/tribes and fractions than today. Europe was also consisting of tribes long after AD. There is also a reason they are called the First Nations in Canada.

Europe's germanic people had the tribes of the Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Lombards, and Goths. The Visigoths and the Basques lived in what is now Spain. Heck, Germany was not much more than a collection of city states until the second half of the 19th century where foe turned to into trading friends, and back again to foe. There is a reason Napoleon just steamrolled right over the place in the battle against the Third Coalition.

120 years before Columbus, the countries of what is today Scandinavia was little more than a collection of loosely held together nations with multiple kings sometimes warring, sometimes not. This did not stop until the 17th century.

Wales was for a long time after the 13th century nothing more than a number of smaller "states", all ruling and quibbling among themselves, the only real difference with Indians was that they were not nomadic.

Greece was also consisting of some fifty minor city-states sometimes warring, sometimes not.

Your insistence that that Europe was not like I have proven above this is simply not true. You should read up on your history and stop spreading social nationalistic lies.

I'm living in Titska Watitch Territory, and lived here most of my life. Almost all of the Europeans have left Europe for a reason. They came for the land and an improved quality of life. It doesn't give them the right to come illegally.

Google's brand? Amazon's brand? LG's brand? Sprint's brand? Samsung's brand? Though I agree that most of the above brands have no single defining product other than Amazon (shopping) and Google (more or less the internet).