... to the substance of my existence and being able to separate it from the mortal ball and chain of my biological matter---avoiding the philosophical aspects, I'm implying something sort of ... technological.

Prevailing Consensus:

"Skitt’s Law" (1999) "Any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself” or “the likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster.”

Contenders:

"McKean’s Law" (2001) “Any correction of the speech or writing of others will contain at least one grammatical, spelling, or typographical error.”

“Hartman’s Law of Precriptivist Retaliation.” (1999) "Any article or statement about correct grammar, punctuation, or spelling is bound to contain at least one error.”

“Bell’s First Law of Usenet” (1990) "Flames of spelling and/or grammar will have spelling and/or grammatical errors.”

... and I thought I was going to read a sort of warm and fuzzy thread starting out with a reference to Carl Sagan's, Contact. Instead, the Nazism was about grammar; not Germany's bounced message returned from the Vega.

Although I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the following, I thought it might be interesting to include what appears to be a legitimate post at torrentfreak a few hours ago by the father:

As a father of this 10-years girl, I would like to thank you all for a huge support in this case. We are still devestited of what happened, and my girl is still almoust in tears. I will take this as far it goes, and seek for justice for all other cases like this around a globe. Hopefully finnish justice system will find this as fucked up as most of Finnish & Europes social media, and regular people does. Thanx once again, it really matters a lot for us! Love & respect, Julietta & his Dad ps. Sorry for my bad English. Facebook: Aki"weq"Nylund

Everything looks proper, including the link to the facebook page; my apologies in advance if anything turns out to be otherwise. Fwiw, if it hasn't already been mentioned, the actual download that has caused the recent arrest happened in 2011.

The psychological studies are't science. It may become one some day -- going far beyond the scientific ground work developed by the likes of William James and others; until then, it's diluted with the politics of social engineering. There's too many sociopaths involved in this field using their position to advance their personal beliefs and professional careers -- by giving support to the group-think fashionable for the times. Once someone is accurately or inaccurately officially labeled anything by the psychological community, it'll be a problem for the rest of their life.

Richard Feyman's thoughts about psychiatrists and psychologists are classic examples of a definitive answer (imho) explaining what is wrong about their field of work and the standards they use to form conclusions.

Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course. If you look at all the complicated ideas that they have developed in an infinitesimal amount of time, if you compare to any other of the sciences how long it takes to get one idea after another, if you consider all the structures and inventions and complicated things, the ids and the egos, the tensions and the forces, and the pushes and tthe pulls, i tell you they can't all be there. It's too much for one brain or a few brains to have cooked up in such a short time. However, I remind you if you're in the tribe, there's nobody else to go to.

That was from a published lecture series titled, "The Meaning of It All'. There's an unverified story members of the psychology department at the University of Washington in Seattle stood up in "solidarity" and walked out. He has elaborated about how psychology can be bad science on several ocassions, most notably in his discussions about Cargo Cult Science. Feyman was not one known for his diplomacy.

The article was an unpleasant read. It felt as if it was really written (imho) by a marketing department; sentences that included a variety of pleasant sounding adjectives that were abstract enough to give multiple meanings to the reader -- all designed to make the product's capabilities sound impressive, important and possibly giving the mistaken impression it's a new product release (without actually saying so).

From TFA:

"We reached out to Microsoft for comment on its Xbox set-top box plans and the company issued the following statement:"
"Xbox 360 has found new ways to extend the console life cycle by introducing controller-free experiences with Kinect and re-inventing the console with a new dashboard and new entertainment content partnerships. We are always thinking about what is next for our platform and how to continue to defy the life cycle convention."

Did I understand this correctly? It appears this could have been just as easily done with any potential product coming from any company

Just in case it wasn't obvious to someone interested, the other reply to the parent was also my reply that was mistakenly posted as AC (#42020027).