First Posted: 02/25/11 07:15 AM ET | Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM

That's like if someone read a court-ordered statement and then rhetorically asked "but what does this judge know" at the end of it. Sure, the first part fulfills the court order, but the last part is obvious contempt. I'm surprised anyone could see it any other way.

Now, I doubt that anyone would be fooled that Apple was sincere in their "apology" if they hadn't added all of that extra stuff, but that doesn't mean it's OK to slap the judge(s) across the face.

That was just one part of the case against Microsoft. Another part was Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. Many felt that Microsoft abused their dominance in the OS market to dominate the internet browser market. A number of people feel that Google is doing essentially the same thing, using their dominance in the search market to push their other services onto their users.

I don't think that applies here, in my opinion. I doubt you'd find many people that go to google.com to find information about Google Inc, the company. What the they tend to do is go to google.com to use the Google Search to look up that information. So google.com is not really Google Inc's business website as much as it is the website for their largest service.

This is Firefox 16 v1.0. The first bugfix release will be Firefox 16 v2.0.

For the Horde!

There are two things wrong with this:

1) What if the default is a true indicator of a particular user's preference? You're guilty of ignoring user preferences. As I recall, Google was recently slapped by the FTC to the tune of US$22.5 million for doing essentially this to Safari users.

2) Ignoring default preferences creates up a terrible precedent.

Personally, I think enabling Do Not Track is one of those "sane defaults" that everybody loves to suggest major developers start implementing. But, since it's Microsoft, somehow there's something fundamentally wrong with it.

You can argue that Do Not Track itself is a useless feature that will have no effect, but then, for you, there's really no difference in it being on or off, so what's the problem?

My courtesies tend to be triggered responses:

"Have a great day and come again."
"Thanks. You, too." [3 seconds later] "Fuck."

Here's the link to page 1 for the extremely laz—editors: [Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.].

He did. Twice.

I'd guess the real difference is less "reality vs. fiction" and more "people make a choice to watch Saw VII" (hopefully) knowing that they're going to see something gruesome. They'd probably willingly watch real carnage if they could get over the social stigma. The BuzzFeed "likes", to me, says that there are people out there who already have.

I knew a person who was arrested because he did something as non-offensive as missing a meeting with his parole officer. They don't like that sort of thing.

Holy shit, what? Arresting a person who created a free speech issue that brought attention to his parole violations is not censorship. You can't let obvious crimes go unpunished simply because the perpetrator happened to create a rights issue separate from his crime. That's insane.

I'm pretty sure being shot isn't a crime.

I agree with you about the apparent double standard, but...

Everything I've read about the Wii U indicates that it will be on par with the current generation of consoles. It's not a more powerful console than the PS3. It's not a next generation system. It's a current generation system... 5 years late... and potentially double the cost of its direct competition.

I don't have much to add to what Chris Burke said, but...

Oh, you most certainly can. I wouldn't called it "force", though, but with knowledge of the person or group, or situation, one can most certainly illicit an expected reaction. How can you possibly be held blameless for the role you had in directing events?

I disagree completely.