I'm not usually one to spout the standard talking points but:
1) All the harm caused by the leaks was theoretical. Not one person or operation has been shown to be harmed by this leak in any real way.
2) Whereas actual corruption, destruction and death on a massive scale have been caused by the interminable Afghan and Iraqi wars that have been prosecuted badly and under false pretenses and with a constant cover of official lies and minimal scrutiny by mainstream media.

I hope Palin truly is unelectable. She has no understanding of anything beyond how to present the rhetoric handed to her by her handlers and act the part of a figurehead. Here's to hoping that the worst damage she can do is as a lightning-rod and a distraction from the real issues. Lord help us if she gets and keeps any official power.

Some of the movies that would seem to benefit most from 3D, don't work out in practice. Kids movies would be obvious winners here, but last time I took my 4-year-old nephew to see a 3D movie we had to leave early because the glasses didn't fit his head. When they keep falling off, you can't watch the movie and when you don't have them on, it's mostly just a blur. We got our money back. Avatar was pretty good in 3D/IMAX, though I'm not sure it wouldn't be just as good in just IMAX.

The things you just mentioned are all things that all sides agree are basic services. They're not usually up for debate. Also, all but one are part of local and state government. You start talking about socialism when the government interferes in the private economy to achieve what are ostensibly social gains that can't otherwise be practically made. However, it's pretty obvious in this case that there's basically no social gain. It's an outright power grab. It's probably illegal. So, while it's not classically socialism, it is flying under that banner. Are you happier with fascism? Does arguing over what to call this horrible behavior do anything to stop it?

Increasingly, I'd just like to vote for no one. We can just fire the incumbent and leave the position vacant. It's time to down-size. Let the senate nominate some key positions such as secretary of state. Let the people vote directly on the budget electronically. It's time to start lopping off the cancerous tentacles of the leviathan.

Here's why the odds-makers are wrong: They assume that the people at the UN know something. As in anything at all. It's just the opposite.

It's not that the end of humanity is on its way. It's the end of this economy. At some point, everyone will come to realize:

1. That the nation's debt, is only getting bigger, and
2. That our economy is not going to grow enough to even keep station with current levels, much less the exploding debt we are taking on.
3. That most of the wealth in the nation is concentrated at the top more densely than any other time in our history (the top 1% wealthiest people own 2/3 of all US assets), and
4. That most of the pain (the tab for the bills coming due) is going to be laid on the middle class, not on the elites at the top.

There's not going to be a jobs recovery. A huge big chunk of our economy was dedicated to developing real estate and financing the sale of that development. The value of real estate is just not coming back for decades. Those jobs are permanently gone, just like the textile jobs of yore. There are no replacements in services or in manufacturing. Our technology edge is eroding and as it vanishes, so too will the production of the remaining expensive manufactured goods that we make here.

Gold ATMs are not useful except in the most dire emergencies. If you need to use one, it's already too late. No one is going to sell gold in the midst of a currency crisis. These things exist to take advantage of the fool. The reason they will make money is that even a fool can see that there is a crisis coming, while very few have any good plan for dealing with it.

Lets put this in simple terms. Imagine you're a farmer with 30 acres. It takes 20 acres to feed your family. 66% of the crop takes care of your immediate needs and 33% goes to savings and taxes. At a rate of 25%, the government takes 1/4 of your crop and you have 9% for savings. The government is having a bad year and decides to raise taxes. The rate is going up from 25% to 30%. No problem, you say. That leaves 3.3% of what you farm as a buffer to sell and use for savings. Last year you saved your profits to eventually invest in new equipment that will increase your yields by 25%. You can't buy that equipment this year because you won't have enough savings. The economy doesn't grow. Equipment doesn't get bought, crop yields don't increase and you're less secure against bad weather and rising costs. What about when the taxes go up to 35%? Now you can't feed your family because you've got less than two acres for yourself. You dip into savings or you take hand-outs or you give-up farming. But that's not how it works, you say. The government taxes income for individuals and profits for businesses. Taxing income is just like taking 25% of the farmer's crop instead of 25% of the farmer's profits. Your work isn't profit. It's time and effort that belongs to you and there's no provision for the government to have any right to it. When taxes are too high, the economy suffers and eventually suffocates. Government can't grow the economy, It can only get out of the way to let the economy grow. This means that the government can't really help you. Every benefit you get means we all lose something greater and we sacrifice future growth.

Power corrupts, hence most authorities are actually greedy grown-up children.

Most parents love their children and a lot don't use their authority wisely. Do your authorities, ne masters, love you?

Not to put a damper on all of the AI / Singularity frenzy, but one of the big unsolved problems of the future is the inefficiency of artificial systems. Bio systems have evolved over millennia in constant competition for resources. Natural systems make the most use out of the available matter and energy. Manufactured systems have a life cycle that is many orders of magnitude less efficient than bio systems. They use exotic materials in industrial processes that are energy intensive. Imagine being a creature that relies on large amounts of Indium, Gallium and Arsenic, megawatts of energy and so many exotic chemicals to repair one's self and to reproduce. Our current technology just isn't near close enough for an explosion of AI machines. Without reproduction, these machines are unlikely to spread beyond the solar system in numbers that will make them easily visible to SETI. That means that biological intelligence has the potential for a long history ahead.

Can I use it to show ads only to people I know? Those ads could be ... instant messages, announcements or maybe just reminders to my wife not to put my favorite shirt in the dryer.

Actually, Apple is the largest retailer of music. Also, they are doing their best to become the most important distributor for TV, Movies and eBooks. Apple sells about $5B per year in thru the iTunes Music/Apps/Movies/TV/Books Store and those sales are growing at about 25% per year. While that's only about 7% of their sales right now, it's growing steadily and likely to be about as profitable as the hardware businesses. It's also likely to equal or outstrip Mac sales within a year or two.

No, Apple is not primarily a distributor, but they are in line to become the biggest distributor. That scares the distribution competition because Apple can afford push down distribution margins to promote high-margin device sales. So, you're right they don't need the money from iTMS but iPhones and iPods and iPads aren't nearly as attractive without iTMS--that's part of what you buy when you buy the device.

And that's the difference. Intel doesn't NEED McAfee, whereas Apple can't really operate without iTMS. Intel might find a way to differentiate future processors by adding industrial-strength security to their chips by integrating AV and management suite facilities with specialized hardware, but Intel has always benefited from being the premiere supplier of open-platform technologies and they are forced to be that way both by the market and by regulation. If they change that significantly to increase margins, they may become vulnerable to attack on both fronts. To me, $8Bn is just too much for McAfee. I think they could have got the same capabilities for a lot less money. McAfee sells low-margin, crappy AV software. They earn a few hundred million a year. Intel earns 4x the return on investment in its existing business (relative to McAfee). Also, I believe the embarrassing products McAfee sells will dilute Intel's brand. In the words of Warren Buffett, as an INTC shareholder "I feel poorer".