The BSA is a pretty corrupt and messed up organization... but the radical opposite viewpoint is absurd. There needs to be reasonable protection for the works of our brains. There MUST be some form of digital ownership laws. The radical arguments presented here mean that Facebook has every right to sell personal information of their customers because simply because they have copies of it.

Who says only drivers should pay? Non drivers get the benefit of the roads too. Unless of course they don't shop, use the emergency systems, or engage in commerce of any kind.
The cost of the road infrastructure is fairly small compared to several other social programs. If the government wasn't so tied up in being everyone's mother, the cost of infrastructure would be easily collected via small income/sales taxes (or whatever) and the vast majority of people would accept those taxes because there is tangible and obvious benefits to having a working infrastructure.

Communism is inherently evil to the individual. Saying it would "work" in its purest form is somewhat absurd. Nazi Fascism would "work"... if you were a Nazi. I value myself more than my neighbors but radical leftists say I am to value the collective more than myself. They simply took the Bible's archaic moral code and replaced "Thou Shall" with "You Ought". They say that the man that mops the floors of my workplace is as valuable as the engineer that designs the products and "deserve" the same lifestyle. It's destructive and evil to pretend we are born into life to be sacrificial lambs to our neighbors who are either not willing nor able to be as productive as myself. Communism is indeed evil.

If the means to steal a Ferrari were easy then people would do so. Although a dependency on local law enforcement is the most powerful deterrent against stealing a Ferrari.
If they removed strict law enforcement against car theft and thefts went up, it sounds like this dude would say it is the manufacturer's fault for having it be so expensive. Somewhat absurd if you ask me. Companies need to make reasonable protections for their own products (i.e. Don't sell something that is easily copied) but without private property productions from law enforcement - civilization crumbles. It isn't as simple as "the price is too high for my N-Sync CD so I *have* to steal it".

The point is valid though. Google can pretend to be on higher moral ground because they don't sell many consumer products and their core business likely never will.
Even then, they didn't call for the eradication of all software patents.. only reform. Most politicians are lawyers and large companies set their policy on what their own lawyers say. Software patents are going nowhere... it's bad biz for lawyers if they vanish.

From a technical standpoint, it isn't hard to architect a system with swappable inputs. The XNA system makes that especially easy. A good architect is going to separate input, rendering, game state, etc. anyway. I have built up a fairly large code library that runs on both without modification, so the idea of sharing code between them much more easily is very valid. On the flip side - the biggest issue is game DESIGN. From the get-go you have to design a game that's control scheme could be ported between both. (Controller-touch screen) Like any system you have to have your targeted platform(s) in mind when you design the application. Not all game types will be easily ported but it isn't because code re-use is an issue. Some games are easily ported. (I ported a card game from xbox to WP7 in a couple hours).

I tend to agree. A company can control their employees and product offerings however they want. It isn't illegal to not offer a product. (Even if it is "better"). If a company actively undermines R&D or new market offerings of OTHER companies then that is a legal issue and the burden of proof lies with people to find evidence of that. We have a robust legal system to combat the offenses of individuals and corporations. If there was an abuse in "ma bell" days it was likely government corruption not holding Bell responsible.

Constitution? We still have one of those?

And who is writing the recipe? You sound like a UAW worker. Nobody says you have to work for these companies... start your own!

Economics in a global age isn't about dividing up the current pie, it is about making new pies. Just like those that worked in manufacturing for years, we all have to continually adapt. The mindset that is killing America is that wealth is somehow "traded" and is static. The truth is that wealth has to be continually generated by innovators. "Programming" as a skill is more replaceable now than ever because it is much more accessible. Science & Tech workers need to be innovators and business leaders these days.

My experience has been mostly with workers in Malaysia. I have found them to be extremely capable and knowledgeable. They are no more "stuck" at a job than we are. In fact, it is pretty difficult to find someone there willing to stay put for more than a couple years. The different countries have cultural oddities too. In India it seemed like people wanted to work for large recognizable companies.

That is simplistic. We are all born free by birth. It is government that makes people less free... all government can be is a tool of other people. A form of Government delivers no principles nor should be used to derive those principles. Government is the process in which the principles of a society are executed.
In a pure Democracy, "We the People" only works if you are lucky enough to be on the side with the most votes. Ask an African-American circa 1850 what "We the People" meant for them. A just and civilized government sets people free from one another and protects their rights from the "mob of the day" based on principles.

I think it is an important distinction to teach this. I hope Utah isn't the only one. (The I'm not clear on their reasoning). In a pure Democracy there are no individual rights. Our Constitution creates barriers to the power of the Republic (which is driven largely by Democratic processes). Americans would reject a pure democracy like the plague. (Hopefully!). I remember Mr. Bush touting "Democracy" without really realizing the meaning (and now Mr. Obama). They probably should have went to school in Utah. A true freedom-loving individual would speak the praises of individual rights - not forms of government. Rights can be protected in a variety of forms of government but pure democracy is NOT one of them.

I never claimed the protests are not free speech. By themselves they are. But saying the protest has a right to make use of a taxpayer wi-fi system as part of the protest is the area of contention. The system exists because of the efforts of people who believe both sides of the issue I'm sure. It is unfair to block it to the protesters as much as it is unfair to force the other side to fund their access. I think the government is wrong in blocking the site but I think it is also wrong to force ALL WI taxpayers to aid in the protest in any way. The wi-fi either needs to be open for everything or shut down completely. There needs to be a steadfast policy here for all users. There is no fair way to "regulate" the speech it gives access to. There will always be an oppressed minority... no matter what the issue.

I can see both sides of this issue. On one hand I am disturbed that a government is blocking a web site but imagine if this was a skinhead rally... few would be debating the wisdom of blocking web access to them or whatever it is they want to use to spread their message. (Facebook, hate sites, etc.) The government can't pick and choose which groups get a protected soap box and which don't... The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak - but does not provide the tools to do the speaking nor the audience. (You have to acquire those yourself). You can write a book but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to a printing press.... you need to buy or make one yourself. Saying government employees can protest against the taxpayer using wi-fi provided by that same taxpayer isn't protected "free speech"... it is yet another entitlement and the root contention of the protest in the first place.