Except that tomorrow that little hobby application is suddenly used in an engineering project and a bridge falls down. Then they get upset at the developers because the answer was wrong.

Or Thunderbolt. Apple even has a TB monitor with an embedded ethernet port, as well as a power supply for the laptop.

You're thinking of caching, not buffering.

Other way around. As described, you have the option to have it turned on for you. They are taking the default position of blocking certain segments of the 'net. I'm of the opinion that it should be the other way around. You ask to have certain sections turned off. Or even better, adjust your own firewall to do the same. No need for the ISP to get involved at all.

Except you're missing some parts. Tom builds and sells lorries. Tom likes lorries. Tom is telling everyone that his lorries are the best lorries. Tom expects everybody else to use his lorries. It costs Tom nothing to use his own lorrie. Tom does go grocery shopping in a lorrie. Why isn't Tom using one of his own lorries to do his shopping?

You're thinking Trademark.

That's an assumption that the police didn't have reasonable grounds. All the OP talked about was that it happens that "a person is charged with one and only one crime, to wit: resisting arrest". Nothing about what preceeded that.

Can't say whether the apology is necessary or not as no details about the resisting arrest were not given.

Here's a theory: one can be arrested for a fair number of reasons (such as they have reasonable grounds for suspecting one has committed certain offences). Resisting that arrest is also illegal. So once the person has been arrested, and further investigation has occurred, it may have been determined that the person did not in fact commit the offence (or insufficient evidence, whatever). As a result, there is no charge regarding the original reason why the person was arrested. However, resisting the legal arrest is itself illegal, and there may have been sufficient evidence to show that the "resist arrest" occurred so charges were laid for _that_ offence (and apparently subsequently found guilty).

Is it just me, or does the logo look suspiciously close to Abstergo Industries' logo?