That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group."

And perhaps that is exactly what is hoped for, precisely as you have suggested. Foreign governments (i.e. non-US) might not put much effort into tracking down someone who 'might' be remotely linked to someone else who 'might' have been involved in a DDos, but they would have a hard time resisting US pressure to help catch the 'terrorists' who are threatening to use bombs.

I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the reason behind the claims, and I don't think that my tinfoil hat is too tight, but it wouldn't be the first time that a Government has 'manufactured' evidence or made false claims in order to garner public support for what would otherwise be an unpopular action.

If I cannot test it - I will not buy it. Don't worry, as soon as you explain that you will be forced to buy from a competitor they will open the box for you.

"...being an Islamic extremist."

I'm not sure if I've read this correctly, but I thought that they knew that he was a Muslim but not that he was an extremist. I'm not American but I don't think that it has yet been made illegal to follow any specific religion - nor should that ever be the case! An individual's religious beliefs has nothing to do with the State. Many of those close to him DID know that he held extremist views but, apparently, they did not take the necessary steps of raising the matter with anyone who could assess his suitability for either his post or for buying firearms. There were lots of mistakes made but I don't think that the FBI were to blame for them. It wasn't the case that the FBI 'had no problem' with the person that you describe - rather, they we not aware of the facts because nobody bothered to tell them.

Not being an American, I might have missed some critical reporting but that's how I recall it being reported here.

"Now go back to using your Windows: Linux Edition (sorry, I mean Ubuntu) and stop turning every thread you can into a baseless battle of the OSes."

Why have YOU turned this into a battle of OSes? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Ubuntu. It might not be your distro of choice but for many thousands of people, it is exactly that. The fact that it is user friendly and works out-of-the-box makes it more popular but no less of an OS than whatever you might choose to use.

"I'm still wanting to know how Google violated your 80-year-old Grandmother's privacy, and which laws they broke." (ec.europa.eu) http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/law/index_en.htm. There, now that wasn't too difficult, was it?

"Common carrier status"

As far as I know, there is no such thing in Europe - it is an American status, not one that is applicable worldwide.

Alternatively, you could just fight back by not buying any Sony products in the future but contacting them now to tell them of your decision. After all, the PS3 is a luxury item and not a necessity. This is the only thing that will get their attention (i.e. it affects their profitability!). The message will not get through overnight, but it will dawn on them eventually.

Except that you don't 'accept' the EULA until it asks you to do so, which is usually at home after the purchase. So the OP was correct in saying that in the UK the EULA cannot be enforced - although this, to the best of my knowledge, has not been to court yet. The agreement with the seller is usually for a computer system. There is no requirement for you to formally accept the software that is installed. This applies not only to the OS, but also to all of the junk, er 'Value Added' items that are also stuffed on the hard drive.

He didn't say the EU - he said Europe. Norway remains a part of Europe regardless of whether it decides to join the EU or not.

NATO does not have blanket diplomatic immunity. Its deployments, short of all out war, are usual carried out under a Status of Forces agreement which details, amongst other things, which laws individuals can be held to account under and how transgressors will be brought to justice. Additionally, it will detail when a State is responsible for an action and when the individual carrying out the action will be held responsible. For example, if soldiers carrying out lawful orders attack an unarmed civilian group then it is usually the State that controlling those soldiers that is responsible. If the soldiers commit the atrocity while not under under orders then they are responsible for their own actions but the SOFA might specifically say that they will be punished by legal means in their own country rather than in the country in which the offence occurs. This prevents soldiers, for example, from being awarded a death sentence if their own country does not support the death penalty. The problems usually arise (but not exclusively so) when a crime is committed yet those committing the crime are not punished by the State that sent them. This is a breach of the SOFA and tends to devalue the SOFA for ALL nations and not just the one involved with the incident. In wartime, a completely different set of laws are applicable, include national laws and the Geneva Conventions.

In Europe there is no 'right' to distribute browsers. You have a choice to do so IF YOU WISH. You are obliged to obey the law. Was that clear enough, this time?

Oh good! I can pay online - providing I've not been given '3 strikes and out' without the chance to prove my innocence. Online is only usable if it becomes a right with which the Government cannot interfere. After all, they cannot prevent you from using a post office or a bank to make a payment if you are complying legally with all other requirements of life. But the internet is not the same. The ISPs will be tasked to carry out deep packet inspection - which implies that they will also be able to collect your bank details which, of course, will be entirely secure and never leaked or misused -, you could be disconnected because someone else hacked into you network, one member of a household carried out something deemed suspicious (i.e. downloading an Ubuntu CD?), or the 'Government' doesn't like the fact that you support an opposition party.

'The only laws that need to be followed -- in any country -- are just laws: laws that protect us against theft, assault, murder, contract-breaking, etc.'

And the laws are 'just' if they are put in place by the people who are responsible in a democracy for doing such a thing. Deciding that you will obey some laws and not others is not at your whim. The laws are there to protect the majority and not to suit you as an individual. Your right is to be able to choose (i.e. elect) those that you want to be responsible for writing the laws. Even if you have elected someone, you do not have the right to obey some of their laws and ignore others. Well, that is certainly not the case in Europe anyway.

'but the state *is* forcing companies to do business their way or bust, which is unjust'

As you correctly pointed out, Microsoft do not have to do business in Europe if they do not wish to do so. I feel that they would be stupid to turn their back on such a large potential market but they are free, nevertheless, to do as they wish. However, IF they choose to do business in Europe then they MUST comply with the laws that are applicable in Europe. I cannot understand how you can see this as being 'unjust'.

NRLA != NLRA

What is wrong with 32-bit systems? I have 8 computers running here, only one of which is 64bit. They can all do word processing, compile programs, run a spreadsheet, surf the web, manage email, edit photographs......

Now please give me a sensible answer as to why I should want to upgrade any of them. Because of marketing hype? No. Because I cannot do something that you deem to be important? No, again. Because they cannot do it as fast as you think is necessary? No, for me and my users they are perfectly adequate and meet our needs perfectly. So please tell me why I should spend money to upgrade my computers.