I gather thats a vote for solyient green

...to "coverourass.com"?!

Wow!

I am not sure there is anything else that could be said...

Using his charity to both invest in and lobby for Monsanto and British Petroleum as a means of investing in private wealth to evade taxes and demanding nations change laws to suit his business needs before engaging in his self serving charity used as a mask for greed and malevolence worldwide. This would be the very business model of Lex Luther, if you ask me...

I think they pay them in Ireland, actually, and at a nicely reduced rate, too :)

While your overall statement could be thought of as broadly correct and relevant, it does so by being a chimeric language where you have two completely different and unrelated syntactic forms (C and smalltalk) that are superimposed on each other. I personally feel this reduces overall legibility.

Another consideration is that since method calls are messages with signatures that are symbolically matched at runtime as each method is invoked, there is some runtime overhead in method calls that are very different than found in C++ methods, even in respect to C++ virtuals, and this may become very important depending on how methods are used. To me Objective-C tends to make you use smalltalk as the framework for "overall" application structure and then use pure C for the details, where C++ is better for applying object oriented methods even to low level details, and this is where execution speed often does matter.

Finally Objective-C's runtime library standardized threads and conditionals, which makes writing multi-threaded applications more consistent and even generically cross-platform. However, all the issues with using pure C functions and libraries that are not re-entrant do of course remain.

If so, I suspect this will be very interesting....

While not covered well in the press, like IXI, Motorola is also demanding that Microsoft stop shipping "infringing" products, though in this case they speak of virtually the entire Microsoft product line. This can become very interesting. I think Microsoft picked on the wrong company to try and bully and run it's protection racket on this time. They seem to have inherited SCO's footgun...

Protecting democracy often requires treason. Certainly trying to create it did...

And if Jane FBI agent comes knocking on your door and says she's an Avon lady, and you let her in, she can search your premise while your getting coffee for her because you assumed she was friendly?!

Some see it as anti-trust and related to things like the U.S. Sherman anti-trust act. If I were a musician I would see it as a very basic restraint of trade.

And this demonstrates well one reason why PC health certificates would similarly fail. One need only propagate an exploit that convinces those running such a system your doing an "unapproved" activity and you can rapidly lock out large numbers of people. Is it not rather interesting also how very closely PC health certificates and censorship also relate?

I know it is a rhetorical question, but it has to be said. Given that the United States signed over 29 nation-to-nation treaties with the people of Lakotah, and gravely violated every last one, as well as every single nation-to-nation treaty made with the other captive nations of North America, it seems rather hypocritical to me this very same nation complains about breaches of treaties by others.

When faced with a fundamentally unjust society people will increasingly turn to alternate means to redress legitimate grievances. This is why civil liberties matter and why due process, equal justice, proportionate punishment, and presumption of innocence rather than presumption of guilt are essential, and yet all of these core principles are under open attack in the United States today.

The government is trying to protect us by forcing us to be less secure and more vulnerable. That logic simply does not follow. I'm not against responsible internet wiretaps but this is the opposite of responsible.

Responsible wiretap is not trolling through arbitrary communications simply because it can be done, and this statement I fully agree with. Similarly, the U.S. 4th amendment came into practice not because it was at the time impractical to spy on everyone directly, nor does it end simply because technical means to do so have now become available. A government that lives in fear of it's own population is by definition illegitimate.