People can refuse to engage in something they know is unethical or immoral, to hell with C level execs. Refusing to do it will come with consequences, but I'd rather have an empty belly then a troubled conscience.

You'll probably hear many arguments, either for the developers (which I fully support), to the user (buyer beware), and even some for government enforcement.

I think in this case, only the first two are true:

Developers, I think, have a responsibility of accurately representing the capabilities of their software and not artificially inflating the capabilities of the software (or a phone) past what is 100% true and accurate. However, users also burden the responsibility of doing at least some basic research and taking a common sense approach as to what is truly adequate for a purpose. The government shouldn't interfere at all in an ideal situation, however that will never exist because people - if unrestrained - tend toward what we'd call uncivilized behavior because of lack of threat of immediate consequence.

People need to hear how these people do business. I imagine the jury will have no problem not awarding this patent troll anything. I wish cases like this were on CourtTV instead of stuff like the People's Court, Divorce Court, and Judge Judy.

I still use WindowManager almost exclusively. I can't stand either GNOME or KDE anymore. Both are crap imo.

Probably the worst idea ever.

Do they prevent any sort of crime?

I've heard of pot smoking vets getting locked up for 10+ years under such stupid laws for nothing more than possession.

Did people (more specifically, politicians) really think they'd work or were reasonable for copyright infringement?

I was thinking of a small camera capable of looking into several wave-lengths and/or use as a telescope/microscope (understanding it would have very limited magnification powers), bug-eyed multi-optics would be pretty dang cool and I'd take that option as well.

I'm willing to carry a back-pack. (; Though range-finding, targeting and other, non-weaponized uses would be just as agreeable (though I imagine targeting would be a weaponized use).

I'll concede that, and I'm not sure if I want my social network data to be used in finding a route (unless I am actually looking to visit my social network contacts). We could base the data on publicly available crime statistics with real-time updates?

I don't know, if the titanium plates were mounts for a multi-optic cybernetic implant (and a laser), I might go for that.

There is definitely a fine line between utility and racism in this case. How does one overcome cries of racism while still maintaining accurate data? One could of course discount race from the algorithms but I imagine having a user rate a neighborhood as 'safe' or 'not safe' or even 'dangerous' does from a technical point. Of course, the wetware inserting the rating could be using race as a reason for the rating.

Unfortunately they were too busy making tea to be smug about this latest development.

I thought technology and features were supposed to increase - not decrease - with each successive generation of product? Is Amazon trying to kill sales of it's own e-reader? To what end?

Government boundaries? This is the same government that continuously gives the Constitution the finger with all the new exceptions to laws that congress critters pass for themselves, with all the new powers they grant for themselves, etc. ad infinitum. I'm not sure he'd have it any better, but it certainly wouldn't be the same.