I'm surprised that this hasn't always been the case, as you seem to imply. Is this because average lifespans have gone up, and there just weren't enough old (over 70 I presume) people alive 100 years ago or so?

In my opinion it was just a little joke. Besides, isn't Easter the most important Christian holiday?

Yes, but what's disgusting about it? Maybe I'm doing it wrong...

Interesting that you mentally link porn accounts with disgusting. Makes one wonder just what kind of porn you're into.

That should be DPRK, of course. Serves me right trying to use fancy initialisms.

Would you really want to send your son or daughter to die in North Korea because crackers broke into a company's servers? Also I'm not really convinced yet that NPRK's military was behind the crime.

Even if they would be viewed as cowards, who is going to remember that when the next iPhone or whatever comes out? And I bet even fewer people will skip buying it because of this.

I suppose I misunderstood your first post I replied to. I thought you meant you wouldn't want to install updates because you don't trust Apple and I was curious why, in that case, would you trust OS X in the first place.

I don't use a Mac myself, so let's swap Microsoft in there instead. I think it's not entirely unlikely that they would be able to install updates without prompting me in any way, if it was in their interest. Usefulness of the system outweighs the likelihood of them screwing me over, hence I continue to run Windows for the time being.

Why is it nonsense? I don't think updates require significantly more trust in a vendor than using their operating system in the first place does. If they wanted to push in any way malicious updates, they could have built in a way to bypass the normal update mechanism altogether or hide it in a Trojan horse.

On the other hand, who do you think will stop buying their products? I doubt anyone can arrange a boycott on that scale, even if everything made in China is outlawed.

But in that case you're probably not running OS X anyway, so the automatic updates are a moot point.

If he invests one billion in something with a measly 0,1% return, he'll still gain more money in a year than most salaried employees do. The money will replenish just fine, I think.

Rephrase that as "everyone should have pretty much equal amounts of stuff" and it doesn't sound that greedy any more.

If it rejects and begins countermeasures. Meaning if the US launches a military attack, they'll (try to) defend themselves. Nothing special or surprising there IMO.

IANAL, but if the copyright holder (assuming that would be Sony here) distributes something, why would it give anyone else legal rights to do so as well? Unless you meant something different (or maybe YAAL)?