To you, perhaps. What was it you were saying about batteries? Most users don't want to change them? Well most users don't give a shit about Skype seeing their contacts, either. They just want it to work. In fact, Skype having automatic access to their contacts is a beneficial feature to the non-paranoid, because it's very convenient.

Also, I wonder how long you'll keep this double-think talking point. "Slavery is freedom!"

And EVERY JAILBREAKABLE iPHONE is vulnerable to malware that can completely bypass any of these restrictions that you're hiding behind, yet you conveniently forget that. In fact, some iPhone jailbreaks are so trivial that simply visiting a webpage puts your device at the mercy of the page's owner.

--Jeremy

Every iPhone that can be jailbroken is also running around with a phone that has known vulnerabilities.

As far as I know, that means all of them.

--Jeremy

It's great when you get to speculate about what might happen and use it to make your opponents look bad. Let me try:

I'll bet if it were a liberal instead of a libertarian, they'd have not only found him guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, but they'd have probably shot him as well.

Wow, my speculation sounds like a way more horrible outcome than yours. Liberals must be so oppressed!

--Jeremy

It's easy. For dublin, the oil industry is something (s)he likes, therefore by definition it cannot be corrupted by government money.

It's some nice doublethink. Short circuits any need for logic.

--Jeremy

Here's the difference. It's subtle, so you might miss it.

The Republican argues that government regulation is bad, period. Therefore any new regulation championed by a Republican is HYPOCRISY.

The Democrat argues that "this piece of regulation is good." That doesn't mean that all pieces of regulation are good. That doesn't mean they automatically have to support every other piece of idiotic regulation that gets proposed, and it doesn't mean that they can't be for removing pieces of bad regulation.

The Republican world is black and white. The Democrat doesn't buy into that false dichotomy.

But whatever, keep telling yourself that it's the same thing if it makes you feel better.

--Jeremy

If you are referring to the CRA, then you are wrong. This is a popular talking point with Republicans who have no idea what they're talking about.

--Jeremy

There's a huge difference between not supporting something and not allowing it. Therein lies the reason for the discrepancy in people's reaction to Jobs' artificial restrictions.

--Jeremy

In other words: "If it was a good enough truth for some illiterate desert dwellers 2000 years ago, it's good enough truth for me!"

--Jeremy

Any liberal politician who voted for VAWA.

--Jeremy

I honestly don't have that much interest in Google Glass. However, I'm tempted to get one and wear it everywhere just to make paranoid self-important douchebags uncomfortable. There's just something so narcissistic about assuming that anybody gives a shit what you're doing ... and Google Glass would be a really handy tool to help expose the narcissists in my midst.

--Jeremy

Fuck the shareholders. The best interests of society outweigh the importance of your retirement portfolio. If the company you invest in can't make a profit legally AND ethically, then you don't deserve to take home a goddamn cent.

The only reason the tax codes are so complex is because every time they aren't specific enough, accountants find a loophole and even though it's completely contrary to the spirit of the law, some fucking lawyer goes to court and says, "but you didn't tell us we COULDN'T do this!" Then they get off without paying taxes and new laws are created that try to close the loophole(s) that are currently being exploited. Then when new loopholes are found and exploited, apologist morons like you justify every unethical action that every rich person or corporation takes because, "the law didn't say they COULDN'T do that!"

--Jeremy

Ahh yes, just like it's human nature to go pick dollars off the dollar tree and spend them as they see fit.

Wait, what? You say dollars don't grow on trees? You say that dollars are created by the government, and only have value because they're backed by the government that created them? Pfft. That's stupid. Next you'll try to tell me that some of those dollars need to go back into that system to help support it, so that it can continue to back them and give them value.

Idiots. The fed can print money for the government forever, it doesn't need me to give MY hard-earned dollars back. I got mine, and fuck everybody else. I'm an island who doesn't need anyone or anything.

Except the police. Those guys have to protect my dollars. And the justice system, obviously. And roads, too, because they help the police get around and help me get to my job where I earn those dollars. Maybe water and sewage as well. Also, food inspectors and regulations would be good, because who wants to get sick and die from buying tainted food? Maybe also some sort of people who vet drugs to make sure they're safe. I'm sure there are 1 or 2 other really small things that I'm forgetting. But that's it! Anybody who thinks the "government" should do any single thing beyond what I think is correct is a damned socialist out to destroy my freedom and STEAL my hard-earned dollars at GUN POINT! (well, figuratively. And I know I said the police were necessary, and that they should obviously have guns, but when they're used to force me to do something I don't like? Oppression!)

--Jeremy

Oh fuck off you PC tool.

--Jeremy

And the other side is so steeped in mythology and believing in "original sin" that they can't see past their learned helplessness to understand that this has nothing to do with individual misdeeds, and projects their own narrow world-view of guilt and sin onto their opponents' position.

--Jeremy

Do you have any evidence to back this up? Or are you just asking us to take it on your word, the same way you clearly think climate scientists don't have any evidence of AGW and are just asking us to take their word for it?

--Jeremy