Why don't they lower the prices, you asked. You then mentioned they do lower the prices, especially on Tuesday. Weekdays cost less than weekend nights. A movie without popcorn costs a lot less than one with popcorn. Their web site has coupons. You can spend $5 going to the movie, or $25.
Theatres are very good at letting you spend as much or as little as you want. Some people will spend $25 or more for Saturday night ticket, candy, and large soda. The theatres have pricing where they'll accept that $25 from those people. They ALSO sell to the $5 crowd, on weekdays.

It's really nothing more (or less) than a conspiracy to not give us full sized beers . . .

hawk

You mentioned EOLAS as a patent that I guess you think covers something with no utility. Clearly most people think browser plugins have utility. The problem with the EOLAS patent wasn't that plugins aren't useful. The problem was that they sat on their "rights" for years, then launched a sneak attack. In the landlord-tenant analogy several types of estoppel would have prevented that. You're probably familiar with "squatters rights". In that case, Microsoft was the squatter on EOLAS claimed property. Perhaps they should have had squatters' rights.
You also mention bad patents - companies patenting methods or inventions they didn't invent. That would compare to a false "landowner" demanding rent for land they don't rightfully own.
None of that in any way supports the assertion that patented inventions hold no utility for the user. I'm utilizing patented technology to write this, so clearly Google's R&D had some utility to me, the user.
You could probably make several reasonable arguments about patents - that the patent office should be far more strict about patents they grant, about patent trolls vs. inventors, etc. The problem is, all these arguments are all mixed up in your head, so you don't seem to know which argument you're making at any given time. Your zealotry even seems to have you so confused that you'll believe, and argue, anything that seems vaguely anti-patent. I bet you'd argue that patents are unconstitutional, simply because you'd like them to be. There are plenty of good arguments about patent trolls. Slow down, read them carefully, and THINK about them.

A large chunk of the GUI systems you see on modern Linux distributions, as well as things like the Red Hat cluster suite, were developed by or in conjuction with paid distros like Red Hat. Are they completely incompatible with open source? Red Hat isn't free as in beer, but it's GPL. Someone has to buy it before they can distribute it under GPL. Seems to be working just fine.

Click on the list of presenters. It includes the founder of FSF E, a lawyer from FSF E, and representatives from open source projects.

If it has no utility for you, you wouldn't license it and wouldn't be missing out on anything, right? Of course there's some benefit being conveyed to the licensee (user). Specifically, the useful result of someone's research and development efforts. If it weren't beneficial, you'd have no interest in it and not care if it were patented or not.
The problem isn't that things patented aren't useful, the problem is that inter-operability standards should avoid patented methods so that implementations can be compliant without paying license fees.

I don't know of very many similarities between scientology, a con game started by a science fiction writer, and the Church of Latter Day Saints, a significant religious denomination whose members perform millions of hours of community service and give generously to communities around the globe. That's like asking "what's the diference between the Red Cross and the mafia?"

The author starts with the premise that it's a shadowy, secret plot, evidenced by the fact he saw the promos for the workshop only WEEKS in advance. I know I always advertise MY secret plots weeks in advance of sitting down to discuss them. He then proceeds to say that the panel, including two representatives from the Free Software Foundation Europe, was a bunch of anti- Free Software shills. The FSF is against free software? Really? Triple tinfoil hat territory.

I'm glad we are able to be pool our resources to be represented by corporations like the Free Software Foundation, which had two representatives speaking at the workshop. I'm also glad the Mozilla Foundation Incorporated (Firefox) has a voice, as does kernel.org, a California corporation.

Given Red Hat Inc.'s investment of BIILIONS of dollars toward OSS investment, I think that corporation also deserves a voice. Why exactly should people who invest billions and hire thousands of people NOT be allowed to speak out about government policies that put all of those jobs at risk? Why should we NOT be allowed to express our views by donating to FSF and sending FSF representatives on our behalf?

"As for the touch being Unix..."
You mean the Macbook Air the GP said runs UNIX? Yeah, OSX is certified UNIX 3, the highest level of UNIX compliance. After spending fifteen years using nothing but Linux, I recently was given a Mac desktop. From the command line, the Mac feels entirely comfortable. In some ways it's more Linux-like than FreeBSD. There are a number of things to not like about Apple. Mainly the fact that an Apple machine is always THEIR machine, not the purchaser's. Apple is in charge, not the consumer. It is, however, absolutely UNIX. I even have admit it's done very "well", for Jobs' definition of what it should be.

I'm not too thrilled with most of these ideas. Full-sized USB? That would require it to be awfully thick. I could see some kind of micro-usb port, and if you want you can use and adapter, but I don't mind going over wifi if I need to tranfer data. HDMI? I don't really care. If I want something on my TV, I'm fine with having a set-top box. Stereo recording? I mean... I have a microphone on my tablet. I'm not sure the value in recording in stereo when the two mics are right next to each other, but maybe I'm just ignorant there.

Mostly, I'd like to see more open platforms for phones and tablets. The fact that I can't just install whatever software I want grates on me a little. I'd like to be able to buy a piece of hardware based on its value, and then install the OS and apps based on their value, instead of buying into a unified platform and being stuck. Though, I can also see the value in having a unified platform. Apple provides great products across the board largely because they're able to control the whole stack. But it'd be nice if I could easily install the latest stock Android on my iPad to check it out, and continue using it if I prefer it.

Basically yes. You shouldn't trust a single unknown wireless router more than you would trust unencrypted public airspace. The two have comparable levels of security, which is to say "none at all".

Probably the very simplest is a network capable external drive like the Western Digital World Edition. Just plug it in and you have network storage. That just gives you a folder full of media files visible to the network, though. A much nicer, searchable interface with playlists etc. can be had with XMBC, a media center for Windows, Linux, Mac and others (including some Android support).

For many disciplines, I might agree with you. After spending thousands of hours chasing down bugs like x= vs. x== , I'd rather hire a programer who is careful what they type. More importantly, the resume and cover letter are written. Aside from the roughly one page of bullet points you write, how you write is all that that potential employers have to go on. It might not be most important information, but it's the only sample of your work that they have in front of them.

"Greedy corporations don't care about their employees" is a politically driven world view politicians feed you when they are trying to get your vote. It has no relevance to the real world, where most companies have tuition reimbursement, training programs, etc. The company I work for has an array of programs. Even the burger joint I started at, Sonic Drive-In, sent employees to the local community college to learn some math, reading and writing more clearly, etc. when needed.