You win the internet sir. Bravo.

Man I wish I had mod points, I would mod this up so high.

Just like they all dropped the iPhone in favor of Android phones with limited flash support?

You know what harmed the brand? Final Fantasy XI, XII, XIII AND XIV. Changing the basic formula of "you control a party and its actions in battles" and going with completely linear game play and odd online experiences killed Final Fantasy. X was the last game that embraced the Final Fantasy brand, since then its been throwing crap at the wall hoping it will stick. These games are Final Fantasy in name only, the magic, the SOUL is gone. Long gone.

Google's ability to tell you the truth? You have got to be kidding me. Google is more than willing to twist the "truth" to suit its purposes.

For example, Google modifies search results to put its services ahead of competitors, despite assurances to congress it would do no such thing.
Google claimed they only decided to create Android to prevent us from a "dystopian" iPhone only future, despite the fact that they had been developing Android before the iPhone was released.
Google claims to have not copied the iPhone or infringed on its patents, despite the interface for Android doing a complete 180 after they saw the iPhone.
Google claims to be all about open and standards, yet it is propping up the 100% proprietary Flash format by including it in Chrome.
Google claims to be all about open yet the one product where it makes all its money, Search, is completely closed source and proprietary.
Google claims its against Chinese censorship but was more than willing to play along with Beijings rules until someone in the gov't tried to hack into their system. It wasn't noble principle, but self interest that promoted their withdrawal from China.
Google claimed that they were accidentally recording and storing wifi data picked up via their street view vehicles, yet that data was intentionally throwing out encrypted data and only storing that which might be useful to them.
Google's CEO sat on Apple's board for years, despite the fact that his company was secretly working on a competing product, all the while gathering information on his competitor.

Raw competition? You think that using profits from one division to prop up a free program in another division designed to undercut competitors completely on price is fair competition? (Google Search profits powering Google ability to give Android away for free). Because if you do Microsoft would like to remind you about Internet Explorer.

Google wants whats best for Google, and whats best for Google is continuing to use you and me, and our information, to sell more ads.

Google's opponents are looking to protect THEIR investments of time and money that Google is using illegally in some cases, they have a long history of doing what they want and asking for forgiveness later. If Google's opponents can't compete why is Bing gaining ground in search? Why are Android tablets selling worse than some of the biggest flops in video game history (the Nintendo VirtualBoy) while the iPad continues to sell like hotcakes? Why is the iPhone still the most profitable, liked device, gaining ground again on Android now that Verizon users actually have a choice? Google has had one major successful product, Search, and some success with services, followed by a litany of failures like Buzz and Wave. It's no wonder Google is spewing propaganda instead of challenging the patents in the courts. It knows its going to lose thats why.

You might want to read the article you link to before declaring so boldly that you know something. Actually the nave is the entire area of the church preceding the altar, not merely the central aisle, but also the pews and exterior aisles.

Next time you try and show off how clever you are you may want to make sure you are right first.

The Zip drive wasn't a replacement, merely a stop gap measure. It wasn't even standard, just an option.

You may want to take some time to study your U.S. History yourself actually. The Constitution enumerates various powers and responsibilities of the various branches of government, it is not however an exhaustive list. The enumeration of powers was precisely why a number of the founding fathers believed that the Bill of Rights was necessary to provide protections for, and enumerate various essential rights of the citizens. The Constitution sans Bill of Rights, for example, would not guarantee freedom of religion or speech, these are not inherent in the body proper of the constitution.

As for "legislating from the bench", usually that is code for "made a ruling I disagree with". Judges can and in fact MUST interpret laws and apply them, and if you think judges are sitting there coming up with meaning out of nowhere just because they feel like it its clear you have never spent anytime in the legal system. There is far more to the law than what the judge feels like, a legal opinion is built upon precedent from previous cases and the general body of law beyond just the constitution. Laws, much like the constitution are seldom exhaustive and complete, how could they possibly anticipate all possible combinations and confluences of events? So there is a cycle. Congress creates a law, the President enacts the law, the Courts interpret the law. If there is disagreement with the interpretation there are two (non exclusionary) paths to take. One is to appeal the case to a higher court, the other is to pass a law which addresses the disagreement and clarifies any disagreement. Ultimately its even possible to amend the constitution to provide a new basis from which a law can be built.

The "Founders" were not some single monolithic entity with a single intent, there were a group of men of a variety of perspectives who argued, sometimes vehemently over the best approach to take, Federalists, Anti-Federlists, etc. They didn't HAVE one unified vision for the Constitution or the future of this country beyond broad strokes of well, not being British anymore. The Constitution + Bill of Rights was a compromise document incorporating the views of this diverse group. To act as if there was as single purpose and philosophy behind it is simply inaccurate.

You can do whatever you want with your iPhone after you buy it, doesn't mean Apple has to support or help you do it.

You mean like video game consoles, computers, etc. which all charge you for extra games/software? You mean like a car where you have to pay for gas in order to keep it running? Or perhaps a gallon of milk which requires you to purchase another gallon after you've used it? Apple sells you a device, after which you are free to do with it as you wish. However if you wish for it to continue to be supported then yes, you are more limited in what you can do. The difference between Apple and Sony is that Sony sold products with an advertised feature and then later removed that feature. Apple never sold an iPhone that was advertised to be easy to jailbreak or easy to side load apps on to. You know EXACTLY what you are getting when you buy from Apple, and if you don't like what they offer, you have many other choices. Thats not evil, its just commerce.

Right, just a couple kids: http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2011/07/anonymous-vows-revenge-after-15-arrested-in-italy-antisec-hacks-continue.ars

*Standing ovation* Couldn't have said it better myself. Especially the part about that tool Doctorow.

Um, no, "cell" refers to a group of people not their physical location. And whether or not they are 'script kiddies" they have been engaging in serious illegal activity in multiple countries affecting the privacy of thousands if not millions of people, so yeah I think the authorities are justified in treating them as significant and referring to them as such.

Right, because Android is completely original and didn't look like something completely different before the iPhone came out. Might want to do a little research next time before trolling.

First, I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion. However I also disagree with your analogy. It is illegal for me to steal from you, yet the fact that it is illegal doesn't mean you should leave your door unlocked. This proposal is more akin to adding extra locked doors to the building your apartment is in to prevent unauthorized or questionable people from getting in. Again I want to point out that I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion, but there is SOME logic involved, only a little.