Maybe I completely missed this but I have not heard or read where the Florida State Attorney or anyone claiming to represent them even mention the "Stand Your Ground" Law as a basis for not charging Zimmerman. The first mention I have heard of this law being the measure of whether Zimmerman should or should not be charged was on CNN. Can anyone tell me if they have seen an interview or press conference where the Florida State Attorney's Office or their representative have said that that the "Stand Your Ground" law was used to measure whether the deadly force use was justified?

Very well put. I used to work in support for a Restaurant POS company back in the mid 90's and the POS systems were sold as a complete package from the touchscreen terminals to the MS Windows workstation that was used to manage the app to change menus, set prices, update sales tax. The credit card black box ran DR-DOS and you connected via modem using PC-Anywhere to clear the credit card batches and sort out the other problems with credit cards. By and large the people who own and run a business for profit could care less what the system ran. Kind of like the vast majority of people could care less about the technology used in there car engines. As long as it was reliable and reasonably economical. Running any kind of business is hectic enough without having a come to Jesus moment about free and open source software.

Ever heard of the saying, "Nation of Sheep"?

Not having studied Law I cannot decide whether your claim about basis for lawsuits is accurate. I do remember having spoke to several lawyers very casually in my lifetime and was told by all that the only thing needed as a basis for bringing a lawsuit in the U.S. is the possibility of making money. You can sue someone for wearing Green socks. You may not win but if you have the money to file you can. So aside from the obvious need for tort reform in the United States I have no idea how much weight was given to concerns about lawsuits. I mean who would have sued them? The Libyans who could then not buy or more likely buy but not use a Blackberry device? Where would they file suit Canada? I mean do you suppose that a people who are oppressed to the point of not even having the ability to buy a given cell phone could freely travel and file class action suits against foreign companies in their home countries. As I would assume such a lawsuit would not find much support in Libya given that they would have imposed the ban.

Simple... iPhones and Android devices can be added into the Enterprise. Blackberry devices were built from the ground up to be Enterprise devices and be very secure while working in that environment.

I could not disagree with you as to how RIM handled giving access to foreign Governments to users e-mail. The Arab country I believe it was Jordan accounts for how much of RIM's business? I would bet not even 8-10%. Even if it were more. What was at stake is the fact that people choose RIM for business becuase of the security and privacy capabiliites built into the platform. You claim that not giving in to the demands of a Middle Eastern Government in order to save your business in that country was like slashing your wrists. I would say totally negating one of the fundamental features of your product would then be like cutting off your head.

How many "Guards" have you met, known, dealt with? Most are just twisted enough or suck at lying to the point they fail the psychological or poly or background check for any Law Enforcement position. The pay is McDonalds grade, the job is boring, most of your co-workers have sub standard personal hygien and as a bonus the public pisses on you every chance they get. When you fail to present them the opportunity they create one for themselves. Another words only a sick twisted sociopath with an authoritarian complex works in the Guard industry. Want to guess what I do for a living? Muah Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!

No it is not just you. I may show my age a bit with this reply but I remember when a company in America had to earn a customers business and follow up with good service to sell their products or services succesfully here in our great country. I remember a time when any employee who proposed that the organization start asking for your phone number, e-mail (didn't exist), home address, how many kids you had etc. would be laughed out of a job. Posting our family photos or private thoughts for public consumption was such an extreme concept that no one bothered to discuss it. Today if you dare question a cashier as to why they need your e-mail, home address, date of birth and phone number to buy a gallon of milk you are looked at as suspect. Anyway... I will not store my data or my employers data (Unix admin) in "The Cloud". Remember if the service is free then you are not the customer but rather the product.

"Hustler probably would offer him a job as foreign correspondent just throw another middle finger to the US establishment."

So you mean people would actually start reading Hustler for the articles???

"Trust has to be earned. Respect should be given be default, and withdrawn for cause."

I disagree completely. I think most people have confused being curteous to others which is not the same as respect. Curteousness should be automatic respect is to be earned.

"I certainly agree that Facebook is trying hard to destroy any trust the public may have once had in them. :\

What I find sad about your comment is it would appear that given the lack of courage, intellect, or whatever among us Americans Corporations and Government have to "work" at losing your trust rather than the other way around. As a kid I was taught trust was something earned not given. You know... Sort of like the other apperantly automatically given (it would seem)social commodity "Respect". After all it wouldn't be proper (Sarcasim "Oh Boy!") to expect people to earn our trust and respect.

Maybe tomorrow, encryption alone becomes cause for suspicion and legal investigation.

This is why you should encrypt everything. If everyone encrypted everything then the seeing encrypted traffic/e-mail, etc. would not be anything to take note of. How many people shred only the important and sensitive mail rather thus easily setting apart sensitive information rather than shred everything such as junk mail and fliers.

I doubt he would change his views even if he should fall victim to such a violation of his privacy since his views are based on what benefits his employers bottom line and thus, his own economic well being. People with his influence have the resources both financial and legal to ensure that any adverse effect such policies have on them is minimal. Only the indifferent and those unfortunate enough to not have the legal and economic resources will pay the price in loss of freedoms and privacy. This is a tale as old as time and we could almost say it is the second oldest profession in the world. Screwing those without the economic, political, or social resources to defend themselves and their own interests... Sort of like the Socioeconomic equivelent of "The Strong will survive".

Ease up kid! We are laughing at a dufus in a Darth Vader Costume. Why not cry to the Media for inserting the Darth Vader line in what you would obviously prefer to read nutjob in costume robs bank. Umm... I for one would read no further. However, Darth Vader robs bank deserves further scrutiny and yes a good laugh! Should I remind you that the authors intent is to drive traffic to his sight and thus increase add revenues. So don't whine to us because you find this tasteless and offensive. Turn the channel Chief!