Isn't this a good thing though? "The People should not fear its government. The government to should fear its the People."

I guess the only thing missing is the revolution to actually throw the government out of the country.

I like to say that I literally 'LOL'ed at this. I've said the same thing a number of times about things that are so easy either on a Mac or on Linux that is impossible to do natively on Windows.

Will Windows 8 have virtual desktops? Seriously...this needs to native to Windows.

People are willing to give up their privacy if it saves them 10% at Petco.

What's to stop you from taking their money and only using Chrome to visit a few websites?

I agree. "National security" is like the Ace in the hole that the government like to use. There are legitimate uses, but I fear that it may be overused.

The meetings may be classified, but should never be off-the-record. The recordings, like all classified materials, should be made public when they no longer pose a threat.

Wealthy/rich people have far more to lose, therefore they need things like police and fire protection more than the rest of us. Therefore, yes, they should be paying more in taxes.

But many of these rich people have insurance, private security, etc. I will concede that they use the legal system more but the legal system benefits all.

I remember my economics class when we discussed something like national defense. Everyone benefits from it, regardless of how much you pay. You can't "opt out" of national defense (at least not legally). We all pay for it, regardless of how you feel about it (Quakers and Mennonites not withstanding).

Another thing that confuses me is when people complain that the rich control the politicians. I would submit that this is true because they have the most to gain and lose. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the rich should pay more and then say that they shouldn't be protected. Keep in mind that I'm not saying it's right; it's just human nature. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

I used to work for a non-profit and it easy to want to be nice to the folks with the big pockets. But I never forgot that the folks with the little pockets often gave more (in terms of percentage) and often really believed in my mission than those with deeper pockets.

Someone earning higher amounts should be on larger tax rates than people earning less. By earning more, you can afford to pay more tax...

I don't understand the logic behind this. This is what I hate about an income-based taxed system (or any tax system based on wealth). Just because I can pay more doesn't mean that I want to or I should.

Yes, I can pay $100 for a McDouble, but I want to pay $1.

Taxes are basically a payment for services. A wealthy/rich person does not get more services (in general; let's not get overly technical about this) just because he is rich. He pays for the police, pays for education, national defense, etc. Why should he pay more simply because he can? Assume for a moment that each person's share of all services is $100. Why should a rich guy be obligated to pay $10,000 when, more often than not, he uses less of those services than someone who is poor?

I understand that poor people may not be able to afford their taxes. This sucks. It truly does. But the solution is not to increase taxes on the rich. The solution is to decrease taxes on the poor.

Unfortunately, there really is no perfect tax system. I have my preference for a flat-national sales tax, but that's just me. Yes, it's got pros and cons and it's not perfect. But it's better than what we have now: a confusing set of laws where you only win if you can afford a creative tax lawyer.

Don't read this the wrong way: making laws should be transparent. I know at the local level, when bills are debated, there is always some crackpot who likes to take their 2-6 minutes to talk about something completely unrelated to the bill. This takes up valuable time but they really can't be stopped. The local reps don't want to do anything about it because the crackpot is usually homeless or elderly or otherwise infirmed. The point is that the local council will often do closed door meetings to get work done. (Let's move pass the fact that these reps don't have the backbone to actually ban the crackpot from speaking unless relevant to the bill at hand.)

I know that Congress doesn't work the same way (e.g. there are no public hearings where I can testify) but they do tend to have more closed door meetings than should be allowed. Furthermore, the notes/transcripts from these meetings are usually not made public (or if they are, it's impossible to find).

There are times when closed door meetings are necessary for progress. It sucks but it happens. But unless directly related to national security, transcripts should always be available to the People.

Saying it should happen and it actually happening are, at the moment, two totally different things separated by a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon. But one can dream...

Many of the companies named has defendants have used patent laws to their advantage. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, especially since Tim Berners-Lee, who is completely against software patents, is set to testify.

The large majority of first-sale doctrine cases were about actual objects (e.g. CDs, books, Lego Playset, etc). This case is strictly about a digital object, which both exists and doesn't exist.

It exists in the fact that a storage medium (a physical object) contains it. It doesn't exist in the sense that the file cannot be handled traditionally.

I've felt that the law is severely lacking in the digital area but, in all honestly, found that it's difficult to write laws for something that can be created out of nothing. I believe in principle that I should be able to sell my MP3s if I don't want them anymore. There is obviously a market for them. But I don't see how this will work in a world where I can sell the object but still keep it at the same time.

This is not possible with tangible objects, at least not until the Star Trek replicator is invented.