You may be right on the issue but under no circumstance should people accept a creed that says animals are equivalent to people or that their well being should come at the expense of humankind. Meeting such an anti-human philosophy half way doesn't benefit humanity at all.
The PETA idiots practice a leftist form of original sin, where people are born into the wrong and have no right to exact will over the lesser animals in the food chain. Laws that you suggest require the acknowledgement that the animal kingdom is something we can and will control as a fundamental human right. Including using them for food, pets, or work. When people put their own lives second to some furball don't expect them to put your life very high on their society priority list.

I agree. This is an issue with a lot of hype and no bite. From what I have seen, patent lawyers have stirred up this pot to make some coin from large companies. Sure there have been some high-profile lawsuits, but it's hardly an epidemic nor is it shutting out innovation. The lawsuits I have been involved in or witness to - common sense has prevailed or, *gasp*, would-be borderline tech wasn't pursued and actual original solutions were implemented instead of copycat BS! If the industry should be outraged or annoyed at anything... it should be the stupid lawyers. Don't get them involved!

I agree. If a pending charge is actually in the works then the name of the company & CIO should be cited. This story is bogus.

I agree in principle, my point is both need to be seen as a serious crime. (Theft of personal information even more so!) Like I said, companies that do not protect this information need to be called out and owe up to their lack of protection. A few years of massive lawsuits in response to customer's lost data will foster radical change.
When protecting my home, I wish my only concern was items but there is the threat of physical harm to loved ones by an intruder. That's why when these crimes are reported the police response is serious. Their first response isn't "why don't you have more security?" (Even though a home could always be more secure in some way) To gain influence, I think we need to make sure our industry's response to these hacking stories is first to identify the act as a crime before preaching security. (Even though it is VERY necessary in most cases.)

I agree, except these "hackers" need to be labeled criminals and called out by our industry as such. Sure the companies could do better (and need to be called out when they are grossly negligent), but that can be like saying a home owner *could* or *should* have put up cameras, steel doors and bars on the windows to help deter the burglar. Sure we could make every house Fort Knox, but that isn't cost effective nor is it always the proper front of the battle. There is a reasonable amount of security that should be in place, depending on what is being protected, and a reasonable amount of vigilance from the law to go after these criminals.

Absolute Democracy is the exact opposite of freedom. You cannot have a Right when all laws are subject to the will of the majority. The act of voting doesn't make a policy moral or even "effective." When your rights are violated it is little consolation whether it was done by a vicious dictator or by the voting of your neighbors. Both pure democracy and pure dictatorship are morally vacant and eventually, self-destructive. The only useful form of government is one that recognizes the individual and their inalienable rights.

This happens all the time. PSAs don't come from nowhere... it is always some well-funded lobby with an agenda. Some groups are just better at hiding their tracks than others. . The abuse of power begins the moment the power is created. All government agencies exist because the pols want to be the focus of the corporate influence. Without these government agencies the actual citizens would be "lobbied" with, *gasp*, better services, prices and policies.

Education is up to the students. Some people want to show up and somehow be blessed with magical powers that will allow them to earn more and be better people without having to get outside of their comfort zone. College is what people make it. Some people grow themselves in school, some do it while working and some never grow.

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.