It won't serve my media entertainment needs until it can play my existing files off my hard drive. MS, like Apple, is very, very bad at supporting anything other than their in-house flavor of video encoding. I've got a lot of TV and movies on my server, and they all play fine with Plex and XBMC. Will they be cataloged and available out of the box with an Xbox One?

If so, count me in, but I'm not holding my breath.

I call you the mother of all Tea Party trolls, but most trolls post as ACs.

The problem with your posit is that there is a (nominally) fixed amount of wealth to be distributed - we are in a closed system. We can change the values of certain things and scale the numbers, but the net effect is that for more people to be rich, the richest must either get less-rich, or the poor become more-poor.

I have here in my hand a list of all the people I suspect of terrorism. It includes many of my business competitors and personal acquaintances I find annoying or otherwise repulsive. For example, you'll see on page 5 I've included Ms. Johnson from down the street who lets her dog shit in my yard and never cleans up after it. I've noticed her making furtive glances at my front window while the dog is dumping and I'm pretty sure she's making notes of when I'm not home so she can steal the propane tank from my Grillmaster and use it in her reign of terror.

Well, if a man would be sent to prison for 5 years for such an infraction, I presume that the penalty would be 5 x $70B = $350B. What's so difficult about that?

They make a tool which circumvents the intended use of the site and promotes (or, in this case, requires) the end user complying with the Youtube TOS.

It would be like Napster getting sued for making file sharing geared towards (copyrighted) music convenient and commonplace. Which they did. And lost. The reason so many add-on services get away with doing similar things is that they are small potatoes and not worth attacking - though you'll notice that many download-and-save add-ons are blocked from use in chrome, so Google is still policing their own house to a certain extent. In this case, it's MS itself - both a competitor and large target - making the circumvention software.

They'll both piss and moan in court over this, but in the end I think MS will be forced to change the software.

Actually I used this calculator: http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm for my numbers. While probably not authoritative, it did appear to be a reputable source, and the answer (0.08) does match the chart below the calculator. And, yes, I'm male so I used the male numbers; males tend to spend more time driving when multiple people travel together, in my no-scientific-at-all observations.

Now, I'm a light drinker even though I'm 200 pounds, so if I have more than one drink in an hour you won't find me driving for a while.

Google: our terms of service clearly state that storing downloads for any other purpose than buffering is not permitted.
Judge: (to MS) So you ignored the terms of service in building your application?
MS: Well, yes, but we just wanted a good user experience
Judge: And my grand-daughter wants a pony. I find you in violation of the TOS, your app must be pulled until you can show it complies.

No, they're just a middle man. They own nothing of exceptional value on Youtube. The high value stuff is owned by others and they have agreements in place for revenue sharing on the ads. It's like everything else in their portfolio - they're really just a middle man.

Does Starbucks grow coffee? Of course not - they offer free seating and wireless connections in thousands of locations for the purpose of packaging and selling high-markup derivatives of coffee beans. If you a whole class of people started bringing in their own coffee, or a cup and a full thermos of their favorite beverage, that Starbucks location would lose out on a potential sale and upper management would start inquiring why they were always packed but their sales numbers sucked.

So Microsoft appears to have made the perfect youtube client? Sonofabitch. When I had limited mobile data, I dreamed for a simple youtube client that could cache several videos for off-line or repeated watching. Of course, Apple won't build a client like - they would rather you not even know youtube existed so you would just buy iTunes everything.

I'd wager that a true professional will use any available technology to maximize their efficiency. The only thing standing in the way is machismo. There was a time when professional chefs eschewed the use of food processors for preparing ingredients - they were fast enough without them. There was a time when pilots would never give up mechanically linked controls or allow a machine to fly their planes.

To be so short sighted that the data-human interface will never evolve beyond an ipad (a very inexpensive way to develop a technology interface), or that a custom scope wouldn't be fabricated at a cost 100x the current unit cost for specialty operations, is to ignore the past entirely.

Why not make 0.02% BAC universal? I understand that there are practical limits, but should you really be going out for dinner, downing a bottle, and driving home?
(a 750ml bottle of wine over 2 hours for a 180lb person @ 0.08 = legal)

Have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. Heck, go ahead and have two. But if you're going to drink any more than that DON'T FUCKING DRIVE A CAR.

Some people are just there for the money. Others are all about the game. I think this is especially prevalent in Lawyers and Engineers. You want to win - whatever game it is you're playing. When Gates played computer monopoly, he played to win. Now he's playing save the world.

I'm not sure whether Jobs was just about the money (though I suspect it), whether he felt his defeat early on meant he could never play another game, or if his early death simply meant he never had the option to switch games.

Can't you build a patented device personally without a license?

The crux here seems that seeds for sowing are protected by the patent, but NOT protected for consumption. If this farmer purchased seed from a third party, and then used these seeds only for internal sowing use, only selling his seed for consumption - is that an actual violation? I (perhaps mistakenly) understood that you were allowed to build anything for your own use without patent licensing fees, but you could not sell those same items for commercial gain. If he's not selling GM seeds for sowing, and only for consumption (and sells them under that condition), he's not violating the patent.

Example: I make, in my backyard, a patented Soybean Harvester out of plans I obtained from the USPTO, or by taking pictures and measurements of my neighbor's. I then use that to harvest my soybeans. It works so well I make three more for my farm. When they break down, I re-build them. Am I liable for patent infringement? I'm not selling the patented Harvester - only using it myself.

I'm sure there are not-lawyers here who can sort this out.

That's going to make the resale of anything covered by a patent rather difficult.

Yeah, but then you'd have to live in South Korea. ;-)