Actually that isn't true. Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt.

But their random occurrence shouldn't be a flag. These aren't random events. You have a group of people taught by the same people, and likely helping each other study. Their answers on an exam aren't statistically uncorrrelated and treating them as if they were is wrong.

This is not true. Domestic law does still apply to US citizens outside the US. You still have to pay taxes. You are still entitled to 4th amendment protections of your conversations and property from US agents abroad. FBI agents abroad can't simply search you because you aren't on US soil. If you commit murder while abroad or violate a federal law you can still be tried for it at home. The reason you can be searched at the border is that the Federal Government was explicitly granted the power to raise and levy customs in the constitution Article I section 8.1 (thank you US Constitution iPhone App). Meaning taxes on goods brought into or out of the country. It is considered inherent in that power that the government should be able to search you and your property as you enter and leave the country to levy those taxes and prevent importation of contraband. My questions is, if you're looking for contraband you shouldn't get a blanket exception to search through things that can't contain it. You aren't going to find marijuana in my laptop hard drive. So why do you get the right to troll through it? I don't agree with it, but that's in essence the legal rational. If you want to fight it you gotta explain why why that reasoning is wrong or shouldn't apply.

As much as I wish it weren't the case, Apple owns virtually none of the EDA (Electronic Design Automation) industry. Which is basically the industry that builds software to help engineers design PCB circuit boards and chips or FPGAs.

Perhaps, but if I can give somebody a wad of cash and they'd go off and do it, it hardly qualifies as novel now does it?

No, you miss the issue. If I buy a computer then I bought it and everything that comes on it. If Microsoft wants to impose conditions after the sale that's bullshit. However, for the sake of argument, lets assume that I agree to do things their way. *By their own terms* if I don't agree to the EULA I am entitled to a refund and I need only tell the original manufacturer. If the Manufacturer doesn't like that then they should take that up with Microsoft or stop selling the bundle. The people who need to grow up are the manufacturers. They knew the terms are there and if they thought it was going to be a problem or didn't like it they could have done something about it. It's too late for them to cry now and not follow through.