Apple is thoroughly infused with self-righteous a..holes. That's the image one gets from the top down. I think they may even work on it. It's a valued trait in the company.

Well, duh. A smug sense of superiority is one of the things they are selling. Yes, I think they do cultivate it, just like Whole Foods and Coach bags. Although I don't buy Macs for that reason, I certainly recognize marketing when I see it.

The issue is not whether smoking is legal or illegal; there are plenty of legal things you can do a computer that would void the warranty. If they're going to make this argument, they simply need to support the claim that the damage to the computer goes beyond normal wear and tear.

For example, computers in chemical labs often fail because small amounts of airborne chemicals attack the PC boards and chassis. I've worked on boxes that look like they'd been strapped to the bottom of a battleship for a few years.

Having seen the office accommodations of some chain smokers, I can't say I blame Apple. I've seen environments where every surface is coated with brown, sticky residue and a multi-millimeter thick layer of dust and ash.

As long as you're demanding that somebody do something they might not otherwise do, and the demand is backed by a threat of some sort, it's blackmail.

"Obey the law or I'll report you to the authorities," is not blackmail. Period. No court would throw someone in jail for a good-faith effort to demand compliance with the law, and in fact the law specifically protects the rights of various classes of whistleblowers precisely so they can demand compliance without fear of losing their jobs.

It only becomes blackmail if you demand something other than compliance with the law.

Apple has a vested interest in maintaining their defacto monopoly on online music sales though their vertical product pipeline.

Are you certifiably insane? They have no such monopoly. You can buy music all over the place, without DRM. I've been buying music on-line for years, and I think the last iTune I purchased was 2005. Heck, Amazon's downloader (native versions for Win, Mac and I think Linux) will download albums and add them to iTunes for you, utterly transparently, and they have since at least 2007, which is long time on the technology clock. In that time I've moved my entire music collection from Win, to Linux, to Mac, back to Win without so much as a blip.

Do they have a de facto monopoly on portable video solutions that actually work? I might give you that, but it's purely de facto. They aren't preventing others from entering the market or abusing market power. It's hardly Apple's fault that nobody else (except Pirate Bay) can do it correctly.

Sturgeon's law still applies. I've paid for apps with prices ranging from $0.99 to $189.99 (no, I'm not kidding, and that app was worth 10 times that much). Wasn't the same thing true on every shelf at Babbages or Egghead? A tiny selection of good games and useful applications surrounded by an ocean of unremarkable shovelware. And the lower bar to entry for the App Store means that even more stuff will be crap. When TFA says things like, "But while the chance for success may indeed exist, the odds of triumphing are still pretty long", they act like it's a casino instead of a marketplace. It's not.

Kick him with your Converse shoe, all the way to Timbuktu.

> they should be taught trust and responsibility Of course, monitoring and control are part of trust and responsibility. First you monitor and control them, then you monitor them and let them control themselves, then you let them monitor and control themselves with periodic verification. That's how you learn responsible behavior. Once they pay for their own car/cell phone/credit card, they will *have* to monitor and control themselves. So monitoring and control have to be part of the learning process.

And you'll be setting up a special call center to teach people how to switch their boot drive on BRAND X PC to the CD-ROM?

"Yes ma'am. I know it says LG-DVD. No, not the movie kind of DVDs. Yes, well, I guess it could play movies. No, ma'am, there's no movie on the CD we gave you. I know I said that, but the CD will work in a DVD player. No, ma'am, you have to use it with your computer, I mean the DVD player that's in your computer. Now press F10 and... what? No ma'am, don't select RESET. No, oh crap, now you've totally pooched it. No, ma'am don't cry. Please don't cry."

Is it? Compensated endorsement doesn't always come with disclaimers. I don't know any of the law on the subject, but it seems like there is a pretty long history of "experts" offering compensated opinions without any particular disclaimers.

FAN 1: "Your science fiction is really just fantasy, not hard science fiction."

FAN 2: "No, your science fiction is really just fantasy."

BOOKSTORE MANAGER: "Quit yelling in the Fantasy & Science Fiction section, you geeks."

It's nice that a movie generates this kind of discussion, but seriously. Did anybody ever think that there was a meaningful difference between fantasy & science fiction? John Varley's _Titan_ is little more than an excuse for angels and centaurs in a "hard SF" setting. Silverberg's _Majipoor Chronicles_ use science fiction and space colonization as a backdrop for an agricultural, feudal backwater world where technology is a kind of magic. Gibson's _Neuromancer_ borrows (overtly) from both genres; just look at the name.

I see. So Google Street View implies that the anything in public is open to anyone regardless of how they use it? That is a laughable straw man.

I classed Google Street View with "candid photography taken for purposes of journalism, hobbies, and reference". In your mind, this is in principle the same as following people around and photographing their PIN codes?

There are lots of ways to use photos taken on public property that would put you at liability. You can take pictures of a someone and use the photo to imply endorsement of your product. You can take a picture and misstate the time and location where it was taken, creating a libelous accusation. You could take a photo where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, for example when entering a PIN code, leading to financial fraud.

You can follow someone around in such a way that a judge considers it harassment. Although, for the record, few celebrities have managed to successfully prosecute such cases, so indeed it might be possible to follow someone around as you suggest.

Now, explain again how a photo taken from a van driving down the street is *anything like any of these proscribed scenarios*. Google isn't following people around, they're taking routine, non-targeted pictures from the street for cartographic purposes. It's not the same as stalking, any more than aerial cartographic photographs are.

What planet are you on? Street view is nothing like you describe, and believe it or not there is ample case law and precedent to separate candid photography taken for purposes of journalism, hobbies, and reference from deliberate harassment. That legal distinction is not hard to make.

Many nudist beaches have explicitly posted restrictions on photography. If they don't, and they do not prohibit others from taking photos, why should Google be prohibited? How are they different from any other private entity?

Tell me why - when the shoe is on the other foot - the geek will settle for nothing less than "opt-in."

Because geeks understand some of the basic subtleties of privacy? If someone wants to do something that requires the use of private resources I own or control -- like my personal phone or e-mail -- then it's reasonable for them to ask before they expend those resources.

If someone wants to take a photograph in a public place, which by definition is not private, and requires nothing from me, then I'm not a stakeholder in that transaction. Taking a picture of something I own deprives me of nothing.

It's an extension of the basic right to have control over your own body.

Don't confuse the symbol with the thing symbolized. You have control over your body and a legal right to assert that control. You do not have control over pictures that include your body, or a legal right to assert that control, although control has been granted in certain commercial circumstances.

Your body and a picture are actually different things, they are not the same thing.

you have to ask people for permission... This is also, why such material is not allowed in court when there was no permission.

Really? Tell me of this court that bans photographic evidence without the permission of the person in the photograph.