If you've set an Airport Express up once, then it "just works" in any scenario in which a direct Ethernet connection "just works". It is bulkier to carry around, though, but means you can sit on the hotel balcony without needing a 10ft RJ45 cable. And, also, if you can't manage to set up an Airport Express using the utility it comes with, then you'll need to help to use a computer in any useful capacity at all.

Or get one of these.

I would think that any of the standard mechanisms in Windows for removing an installed program could be hijacked.

All may be true, but you've really trying to redefine the question. Intelligence is an attribute, just like height, strength, courage, beauty. Some are easier to define than others. You're right that some people are considered 'dumb' but have skills in other areas, e.g. being physically strong.

That doesn't mean that all people are smart in some way, that's just conflating intelligence with skills and attributes in general. Smart people, generally, can be expected to be able to grasp concepts, gain knowledge, and then make inferences in any subject matter that is presented to them. Less smart people may not understand certain things no matter how carefully and elementally it is explained to them. That is an attribute, and it can be measured to an extent.

Either you had a faulty mouse or faulty fingers. I've been using my "Mighty Mouse" for over a year and it's great.

It's not all service providers. I'm with BeThere, any they have the fastest [non fibre] broadband with no caps, 20MBit, no traffic shaping, no filtering. They also offer static IP (initially with their 'pro' package, no for an extra fee, but I still get it bundled in) and encourage people to run their own internet-facing servers. They will do line bonding too and provide preconfigured routers to do that - expensive but worth it for businesses. Their technical support know what they're talking about, and there's a community of users encouraged by the company. Ideal ISP really.

You're missing the point that all OSX licenses are effectively upgrade licenses. Just like when buy an upgrade to Photoshop or MS Word or whatever other commercial software you might use, the expectation is that you possess the previous version and haven't sold it on or whatever. Apple sells OSX on the basis that it is an upgrade to an already existing licensed copy on an Apple computer. Perhaps if the word "UPGRADE" was plastered all over the front it would make it clearer for everyone, but the end result is the same.

Interesting point. I would extend that and say that the EULA requirement to install on Mac hardware is no more or less morally right than the requirement to own an old version of a software package when purchasing an upgrade version. In both cases a company is giving a sale and license in respect of a previous purchase. If we as the "Slashdot community" thing that the Apple terms are unfair, we should really all be against the idea of upgrade and educational software licenses.

They created copies of OSX patched with their drivers and bootloaders, as a master image on a server, and installed it on the machines they sold. That was an illegal derivative work which they had no right to distribute.

Actually, Psystar was patching Apple software to create a derivative work, and installing that on their computers to sell to the public.

They weren't just being a vendor for Apple software, they were selling machines with drives imaged off another server with patched copies of OSX. In other words, they were selling an illegal derivative work. They were also obtaining their licensed copies of OSX in bad faith and therefore breaching contract. We can argue about whether EULAs should be and/or are enforceable following a retail sale, but business to business transactions are quite different.

Actually it does matter. I agree with you that retail sales of software are a bit different, but between two companies a contract was formed and a license to use software was granted for a particular purpose, and Psystar broke that license. Also, as far as I remember, the case hinged on the fact that Psystar created a patched copy of OSX on a server, and sold computers with that patched version imaged onto it, which is a very different thing.

But you can't legally (EULA) or easily install it on third-party hardware. I expect Apple to wake up and change that sometimes soon, as they're effectively abandoning the server market. I know about the Hackintosh community, but businesses generally don't want to spend time making software work on unsupported hardware.

I think those who use OSX for rendering video, audio and 3D graphics over distributed rendering nodes would disagree with you. Many creative professionals have banks of (now ageing) X-Serves which they're having to replace with Mac Pros because it's the only high-end box that Apple sell. Recording studios often have banks of servers for running virtual instruments (like complex virtual orchestras) which would historically have been Macs. If Apple don't come up with a decent solution for them, Windows (not another Unix) will replace those in the back room, and inevitably the studios and desks too. The main thing that's keeping creative professionals on Apple kit is that their notebooks are so darn good. But Dell et al are catching up, largely by releasing near-clones of Apple style hardware.

I disagree. The original iPod was an engineering feat. I know all the technology was already available, but that's the point of engineering - to do something clever and slick that works really, really well, by seeing and understanding what other people have missed. Same for the original iMac - it was a design and engineering triumph, totally iconic. The marketing was there too, but both are needed. See the Commodore Amiga for an example of great engineering and crummy marketing - and also the desire to maintain backwards compatibility holding back what could have been an amazing line of computers.