It's infrequent that I care about anything being sent by USPS. If it's important enough to care which day I get it, I'll have it sent by FedEx or UPS. If it's not worth that expense, it won't kill me to wait until Monday. Frankly, the vast majority of what I get these days is junk mail anyway. It just won't matter.

Just because you're obsessed with gaming doesn't mean there's a magic bullet to convince your spouse to care about it, too. Let's say she cares about ... I dunno ... shopping for shoes. (I mention an interest that was an obsession with a recent serious girlfriend of mine.) Just because she cares about shopping for shoes, does that mean there's any way under the sun that she could get YOU to share her enthusiasm for shoes? The chances are virtually nil. Accept that she doesn't like gaming and has no interest in doing it. And when you make decisions about what to do with your time, remember that if you choose to invest a tremendous amount of time in something that becomes an obsession (for many), you might be laying the foundation for drifting away into separate worlds and losing contact with each other. I've seen marriages destroyed because people made bad decisions about such things. If you can be a casual gamer and not spend much time on it, that shouldn't be a problem. But if you're as obsessed as many gamers I know, it's going to blow up your marriage in the long run — just as any solo obsession from either partner is likely to do the same. Unless, of course, both partners want to settle in to an arrangement where they don't know each other any more and they just happen to live in the same house.

The rules for iOS are very simple. If you want to sell apps through the App Store — or sell anything inside those apps — you give Apple a 30 percent cut. If you want to sell through the web browser, you're own your own. The idea that Apple has any interest in controlling what are essentially web pages is sheer idiocy. There's absolutely no evidence to cause a rational person to even ask the question. It's only insane hatred of Apple and the desire to attack the company that could be behind such a question, because there is no rational reason to even bring it up. If you want to sell something through what is essentially a webpage that has a link on your screen, Apple has never shown the least bit of interest in stopping you. It's sheer delusion to suggest otherwise.

It's amusing to me that some people seem to be taking this seriously. There's a good chance that it'll never ship, IMO, but even if it does, hardly anybody will use it. What an amazing waste of time and resources.

Anyone who believes that the style of the UI remaining the same means the OS is the same is an idiot. What you're saying is sheer ignorance and prejudice. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, factually speaking.

Anybody who can write that "iOS is static and hasn’t improved since 2007" has no idea what he's talking about. He's writing on an Android-oriented site, so I can certainly understand why he would come from the point of view that Android is the best. That's a reasonable opinion, even if I disagree. But to claim that iOS has remained the same as it was in 2007 isn't just a disagreement about opinions. It's factually mistaken, and it's sheer idiocy. It's hard to give credibility to someone who claims to believe that.

It surprises me that some people act shocked to find out about the negative parts of Steve Jobs' personality. Anybody who was even halfway paying attention for the past few decades knew about his dark sides. It's very common, of course, for great achievers to come with strong negatives, so it was no surprise. But even if you didn't understand that it's true in general, the specifics have been out there about Jobs for many, many years. He was a visionary genius (even if a lot of technical-minded people still don't understand that), but he was also very cruel, selfish and overbearing at times. The truth has been very clear for a long time. Those trying to make him just a hero OR just a villain are off track. He was far too complicated for either of those roles.

If a user is too stupid to understand the difference between a private message and a message posted to a Facebook wall (or timeline, now), he doesn't need to be using Facebook. In fact, someone who doesn't understand that distinction probably isn't bright enough to be online in the first place. There are a lot of potential problems with Facebook, and I don't like some of the company's practices. But this is a case in which the company did nothing wrong and Facebook-haters leapt on it in an effort to find SOMETHING to blame the company for. This one isn't close. A user needs to know the difference between a private message and a wall post on a website -- or else get off of the site.

If the iPhone didn't exist, I might very well be interested in Windows Phone. I think it's an interesting UI and has a lot going for it. However, I am VERY happy with my iPhone. There's nothing that Windows Phone does that makes me interested in looking seriously at it. A brand new product has to be an order of magnitude better than what someone is already using to make it worth the hassle of making a change. Even if I were to say that Windows Phone is the best platform out there (which I don't believe), it still wouldn't be MUCH better. For people already entrenched in the iOS world, I see nothing that Windows Phone brings to make us interested in switching. (And people who are attracted to Android are attracted to it for reasons that make Windows Phone antithetical to what they want anyway.) I just don't see who Windows Phone is that much better for. I have only one friend who uses the platform. He loves it, but the vast majority of my other friends are happy iPhone users (with a smattering of Android users in the bunch). Other than people giving up BlackBerry, it's hard to see what the legitimate target market is for Windows Phone. Most new smartphone users are going to either go with the perceive leading brand (iPhone, regardless of what others think) OR the mass market brand, Android, which they're going to see the most choices for. Microsoft's strategy isn't adding up in the current smartphone market, IMO.

You're not very bright, are you? The people who advocate for the GPL claim they are advocating complete freedom with code. The people who advocate for laws to punish murder don't pretend that they are in favor of people having the freedom to murder each other. In both cases, the advocates are trying to CONTROL behavior. People who are against murder admit it. People who don't want people to do what they want with software (unless they approve) are hypocrites.

Yes, I DO like controlling people who are intent on committing murder. And your point is WHAT exactly?

No, it's not wrong. It's also not misleading. The GPL CONTROLS what people can do with software. Just admit that you believe in CONTROLLING people in the name of achieving a RESULT you like. If that's your position, I have no problem with it, but it's hypocritical to posture as an advocate of giving people complete freedom and believing that restrictions are wrong -- except the restrictions that YOU happen to like.

The GPL controls what people can do with the code they get. Period. End of story. If you want complete freedom -- as GPL supporters claim -- they can't use this license. It LIMITS what people can do.

It's hilarious that the people in favor of forcing "freedom" for software on everybody else define freedom to mean that everyone should do things according to THEIR rules. If code is truly free, release it in the public domain. Of course, THAT would mean that you can't control what people do with it later -- and control is what the GPL is all about, despite the pretensions of its fans. They care about getting the outcomes they want, not about individuals having freedom to do whatever they choose.

I'll rephrase. "Unless you're already an Android enthusiast OR you're a trolling jerk, there's no reason to specifically look at an Android tablet." There. That ought to cover your case.