Imagine if Linux required you to sudo in order to chmod u+x something.

That might make a really cool mount option, sort of a "noexec-lite." I bet it would be easy to add, too.

Sorry dude, but anyone who thinks of a "personal computer" and a "telephone" (or a "game console" or a "PVR" or an "e-book reader" or a $HACKER_INFIDEL_DU_JOUR) as distinctly different things -- and that one class should serve its owner and another class should serve someone else -- has sipped of the Nintendo/Sony/Apple/Microsoft(Xbox) koolaide.

If you like the taste, fine, drink more. If you don't, spit/vomit it out. It sounds like up to now, now you've had half a glassful, but I think you've got a fateful decision coming up. If you simply stop right now, the effect will be the same as if you chugged the whole thing, except slower and more agonizing.

This isn't really all that bad. Imagine if Linux required you to sudo in order to chmod u+x something. The only people who would be pissed off by that, would be programmers (but Apple has thought of that too -- you can sign when you create the file, to make it be executable).

Pretty much the only thing they've gotten wrong (and it's a big one, but I think expected by users of this particular platform) is that the ultimate authority on what signatures are trusted, appears to be Apple rather than the owner of the machine.

You might be right that a lockdown is coming, though. Obviously, getting a share of all software sales for the platform, is something Apple would want, and their mobile customers have all already voted that they highly approve of the idea. Why wouldn't it end up going that way? To serve the interests of "classic" Mac users as opposed to iThing users? How many people is that? Not many of those are left, is my bet.

I've seen the claim that open-source publication of the actual implementation of a technique in source code doesn't constitute prior art for a patent

I've seen the claim that Bigfoot is sleeping with Nessie's sister.

The intellectual property arguments are obvious, but more concerning is the health risks

Can we all just agree that there's something for everyone to hate here, without the my-hate-is-more-justified-than-yours competition?

I would have thought it's obvious: No Apple Music, no Beatles. No Beatles, no Sgt Pepper, diminished role for Abbey Road Studios, it kinda snowballs from there.

You could say they're recognizing the wrong guy, and that they should have instead recognized Wozniak. But after his murder by John Hinckley, any such recognition would be posthum-- hey waitaminute, you're right!! WTF?!

I expect the terms also include no talk show appearances, public opinion campaigns, or other mechanisms where he could directly influence a potential juror outside the court. Even a simple blog post could cause irreparable harm to a jury's ability to be impartial.

I think this is the best answer I've read so far, and it seems reasonable on the surface. Best of all, there's a way to test whether or not it's correct: we just need to find other people the same court has allowed bail for. If it imposes the Internet restriction on everyone, then you're very likely right. If it only imposes the internet restrictions on some people, then you're very likely wrong.

After all, the nature of crime someone is charged with, has no bearing on whether or not a defendant using the Internet might influence a juror.

No this incident is does not prove anything like this, just that software needs decent quality testing.

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's merely the 17 billionth confirmation of the overall fundamental failure of the basic idea behind malware signature blacklisting, not proof.

Not surprising they allowed bail for this guy. Ortmann is a totally believable name for a website founder, unlike Dotcom.

Moving your email address is a hassle. Let's just assume you don't want any hassle at all, at the cost of the new guy not quite getting everything he wants (yet still be dealt with very reasonably).

Sell the site, not the domain. Keep the domain either for the rest of your life, or until you're so bored out of your mind that you have the time to deal with moving your email (i.e. hopefully the rest of your life).

On the still-yours domain, have a web server reply with 301 redirects to the equivalent page at the new domain. Then after a while (a year?), have it reply with 410. Then after a while, uninstall the web server. There may always be some stale links, but there's nothin' to do about that.