I also said that it wouldn't make any difference in reality, if you read my post to the end, to take the functionality out of waze.

That being said, such an app could be used to find isolated groups of police (i.e. middle of the night speed traps in the middle of nowhere) to attack which means that the idea is not completely invalid.

There is no shortage of stupid or tech ignorant people in the world so I wouldn't exactly use that as a proof that people would not use an app to find police to attack.

Also what is in their annual report isn't necessarily accurate anyway, so don't just throw that link at me.

Apple wasn't even reporting its U.S. taxes accurately, either, the Senate subcommittee found. Its annual report disclosed it paid much higher U.S. taxes than it actually paid to the IRS. To investors, Apple said it paid $6.9 billion in U.S. taxes in 2011. But it actually only paid the IRS $2.5 billion, according to its tax return.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Nope. I did in fact google it and all I saw quickly are quarterly report information results.

No, it's the same in this case as the product is downloadable upon purchase.

It's a quarterly profit announcement, not for the year.

So the real questions are what is the declared profit / loss for the entire year and how much actual tax are they actually paying on the year?

Not at all. They target alone or almost alone cops and then they run away.

But they provided the product to you. The additional charge would be to provide the product to you again should you ever lose it. (ie lose the install software and whatever backup of it)

Under what basis?

What jurisdiction?

The recent cop killings in France are enough to not laugh at the idea, though I doubt that taking cop spotting off waze would make any difference in reality.

Don't think they wouldn't if they could and if they see your post they'll probably try and get some legislation in place to make it possible.

Bitdefender now charges for the right to download software more than 15 days after purchase.

FTFY.

Breaking up ghettos is very difficult if for no other reason than the people that live there want to live together.

France already has active policies to try and avoid such ghettos to start with, where new developments are obliged to provide a percentage of low income housing as a part of their project. The idea being to spread immigrants and other poor amongst wealthier native communities.

So long as the percentage of immigrants is low, this works. When it gets too high in a concentrated area, then we have a ghetto again just in a different place. The higher the percentage, the less integration.

Current immigration policy is far too open. Once one single person in a family gets papers, often by measures such as buying a spouse for the reason or, more common in my experience, tricking westerners into getting married (including trying to get pregnant by the westerner while they're there on holiday, for example - had that tried on me twice), then the rest of the family gets papers, and then more family and more family and more family, etc.

Islam needs to come forward through a renaissance age but it's not happening.

I'm not sure what perspective you propose to give people who blame us for anything that's wrong in their lives, whether it's our fault or not.

Where do you draw the line? Today it's our right to free speech, what follows? Our women having to be veiled? Our girls not having the right to go to school?

Neil Stephenson brought this idea right down to nano level in The Diamond Age

Possibly to restrict immigration such that the percentage of immigrants remains low enough to make integration into our own culture possible.

If those who come to our countries do not like our culture, they are free to leave.