The Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod. The Pre is specificaly pretending to be a trademarked device that it isn't. Apple will be and probably already has been dealing with confused people when Pre syncing bonks out because of Pre errors relative to iTunes. This is clearly trademark infringement.

Apple doesn't own any portion of my computer. the USB-IF doesn't own any portion of my computer. It's 100% owned by me, and should behave the way I want it to behave.

Not if you're using their software in ways that violate the license agreement. You agreed to this license when you first launched iTunes. The hardware may belong to you, but the software copy you have is subject to the terms you agreed to abide by.

DRMed music doesn't play on the Pre, even with their current ID spoofing. Palm's solution is hardly complete.

Good grief. Educate yourself. There have been dozens of comments already pointing out that Apple provides a simple way to access its iTunes library that is free to third-party developers. RIM uses this method for its Blackberry devices.

Palm for whatever reason doesn't want to write its own software to access the iTunes library. (I think it's because they recognize how bad they've been at writing desktop software for their devices.) Palm instead has decided to improperly copy the USB Vendor ID in a way that violates agreements it's already made as a USB IF member and also violates Apple's iPod trademark. And they aren't doing it out of nobility or commitment to open access principles. At this point they're doing it because they know a big, fat class action lawsuit is coming from all the clients who bought Pres knowing Palm promised (stupidly) they could sync with iTunes.

Actually, irrationality in finance is not only prominent, it's rampant. It was certainly at play in this latest bubble and burst. For example, most bankers peddling the toxic CDOs were using a model that relied on only about ten years of economic data. This is the byproduct of the Availability Heuristic. Additionally, their models often excluded the possibility of such a huge decline in housing prices because there had never been one like it before. The Representativeness Heuristic induces this kind of behavior, in spite of the warnings from others.

None of this is rational behavior. The idea you proposed that this is some sort of Prisoner's Dilemma situation ignores the fact that there are two sides to every transaction. Any of the people who rationally cashed out did it with the money of the irrational people buying their toxic instruments. The Prisoner's Dilemma falls short as an analogue because it doesn't require a buyer for the players to make their decisions. No one has to take the other side of their decisions, which is the case in a market.

For a great review of the hundreds of ways we behave irrationally in financial markets, I highly recommend BehaviouralFinance.net.

I had an awesome experience with O'Reilly for my book iMovie '09 & iDVD: The Missing Manual. (Working with David Pogue was obviously super cool.) My editor, Pete Meyers was great: helpful, responsive, and professional. The publishing deal was good, especially considering it was my first book. O'Reilly also has excellent resources once the book is out, including a web site for authors that has promotion tools and up-to-date information on book sales. It's hard to imagine a publisher reasonably doing more than O'Reilly does.

A car is basically a buggy with a different propulsion system and a steering wheel.

But I agree, a lot of people are making Wave sound a lot more complicated to the user than it actually is. In my example, email is the buggy. People will learn to use Wave just fine.

Actually, users can only edit waves they've been invited to. This means you'd need to invite a spammer to the discussion before they could make changes to it.

Personally, I doubt this will happen. The Blogger functionality was just a Wave extension you could use if you wanted to. To replace Blogger, they'd have to do all the other stuff Blogger does in the Wave interface (elements management, rights management, templates, etc.). I just can't see all of that working in a Wave client.

The same basic argument has already been made by churches many times. The answer by the Supreme Court has always been, "Endorse anyone you want, just don't expect the Federal government to subsidize it with a tax expenditure." Seems like a reasonable outcome to me.

Actually, Apple Support regularly kicks the crap out of PC companies in customer satisfaction surveys.

Nose-picking and porn are equivalent? That explains the mulit-billion dollar industry built up around nose-picking.

And I must have clicked the wrong reply button, but this question was intended for you:

Do you have kids?

Without comment about the moral arguments for or against porn, the idea that it's just pictures is tough to justify. Porn is designed to produce a very specific neurochemical response in people, a response powerful enough to lead to irrational decision-making (See Airley's book, Predictably Irrational).

The fact that people can (not necessarily will) get addicted to this neurochemical response is not only unsurprising, but well documented.

I also suggest you read what you wrote again. Sacrificing valuable personal relationships for something of lesser value is a textbook element of addiction, established by people who study addiction for their careers. But you say that letting your marriage fall apart over porn, which happens to people who are addicted to it, is just a matter of priorities? Can we say the same thing then about the meth head or the alcoholic? If not, what makes porn different? (And again you'll have a hard time with the porn is just pictures argument.)

Your assumption that I am "controlling" my kids to the point that they can't learn self-control is also pretty speculative. Can you point to the specific things I'm doing? Do you even know who my kids are and how I am raising them? The only thing you know right now is that I think filtering porn from their web browsing experience is good parenting. (For the record, my kids are 7, 5, and 2.)

Finally, I'll just ask the question directly. Do you have kids?

Do you have kids?

First, the parent post implied that bad things happen in the world so you might as well let them happen in your house. He started off implying pornography was bad.

Second, pornography has the same to do with addiction that alcohol does. Many people don't get addicted while many people do. Marriages get wrecked because a husband loses interest in his wife since she doesn't look like a porn star. That's not just about "pictures of boobies."

If you were married (and you may be) and your wife asked you to stop looking at porn, would you do it even if you thought her request was unreasonable? There are a lot of men out there who would keep looking at porn at the cost of their marriage. That's a textbook example of addiction.

This all relates to kids because many such addictions are developed during teenage years when kids are still learning self-control skills. Is it really unreasonable of me to try and help my kids develop these skills before they get exposed to this stuff?

Do you have kids? If not, then you ought to shut up before you make yourself look even more stupid.

Just because bad stuff exists in the world doesn't mean I have to let it into my house. Should I invite crack whores and rapists over to hang out with my kids just because they exist? The nature of addiction, with pornography or whatever, pretty much puts the burden on me to teach and protect my kids while they are still learning basic skills like self-control.

And some parents may "kick them out" (their kids) at age 18, but most hard-working, caring parents plan on being there as a resource to their kids for the rest of their lives, not just until they become legal adults.