Yes but either way I don't think you should ever sentence anyone for cheating based on statistics says he plays like a 300+ computer. IF he cheats he will have some sort of device on him that gives him signals or someone in the audience with a device that somehow signals him.
Instead of sentencing someone based on statistics, use the statistics to indicate him/her as a cheater and then find the devices. If he/she cheats there has to be a pretty powerful computer somewhere sending signals, which can be intercepted, detected or blocked.
It will be bulky enough that he can't hide the entire device on his/her person, so the signal has to be transmitted wirelessly to him/her.
Thus either a Faraday cage or a signal jammer in the wireless spectrum would cause problems for his/her cheating and if it's somone in the audience giving him/her signals they either have to sit in his/hers field of vision or have a way to project whatever information somewhere in his/her field of vision, if so then anyone else can see the same thing under the right circumstances.

Well to be honest I am one of those commie pinko lefty Europeans, and I do think we should invest time and research money into finding viable alternatives to oil derivatives and I do think we should move away from fossil fuels to whatever reasonable extent and pace we can. But I just happen to be quite aware that at the moment there exists no large scale replacement so we can't just go about tossing fossil fuels out the door before we have something that can on a long-term actually replace it on the massive scale necessary.

Well a big part of those taxes comes from taxes on fuel, or at least it does here in Sweden where the current gas price is roughly 8.5 $/gallon mostly thanks to the 40-60% tax on gasoline and diesel.

Ok so what replacement do you suggest? The truth is that we don't have anything that can replace oil derivatives on any sort of large industrial scale.
Pumping the black stuff out of the ground is convenient and currently the only reasonable alternative. Replacing oil derivatives with fuels derived from grown crops will simply take up too much of the available arable land on the planet for it to be a reasonable large scale replacement(unless we accept massive starvation is an acceptable cost, and even then we'll eventually run into other problems such as diminishing sources of fertilizers, currently known sources of phosphate rock is expected to last no more than 75 years at the current consumption rate(and is located mainly in China...) and phosphate fertilizers is necessary for modern high efficiency crop production).

Same thing goes for electric cars, there are simply not enough of the metals and other materials(in currently known or estimated deposits) required for high energy density batteries to replace even 10% of the global car park.

I'm not so sure the prices they get over here on the other side of the big pond is that much higher, sure the current price at the pump is roughly 8,50 $/gallon but a really significant(40-60%) part of that is taxes, then there's also the cost of shipping it here.

When it comes to EU Microsoft is considered to be a monopoly in browsers and OS and as I understand it they don't differentiate between platforms all that much, Microsoft calls it Windows 8 on both ARM, x86 and x64, so for all intents and purposes I think the EU Commission considers all of them part of the same market, one which Microsoft has a "dominant market share" in, as well as browsers(although that's probably not technically true anymore). How the Commission and the courts determines exactly whats considered a "market" seems pretty fluid, it doesn't seem to be clearly defined.

To be considered a "monopoly" by EU standards all u need to have is a dominant market share(determined on a case by case basis), so far the lowest determined "dominant market share" was 37.5% so once u pass that line depending on your actions and the nature of the market you could possible be considered to be covered by EU antitrust legislation. IANAL

Yes I know, I meant that the behavior is hopefully illegal in the United States as well. As in "getting caught again"

No Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly in the OS market(where they have considerably more than 1%, it's a lot closer to 91% than to 1%). By preventing booting another OS or dualbooting they are doing exactly the same thing as they were doing(and probably still doing) with PC's. They're trying to sell their tablet by using the fact that it has windows as a selling point and actively preventing others from showing that the tablet (maybe) works better with Android, Linux, OS X or whatever. Hence they are abusing their dominant market share in the OS market to gain market shares elsewhere which is illegal, at least in the EU.

Because Microsoft has a dominant market share by EU standards and therefore this sort of behavior is illegal, Microsoft has been up in the courts over monopoly abuse before so that they have a "dominant market share" has been clearly established, Apple is more of a grey area, whether they have a "dominant market share" has not yet been determined yet by the EU courts so they are free to act as they choose until they are found to be abusing their "dominant market share".

Hence Microsoft is evil and breaking laws, and Apple is not (yet).

Actually people should complain, Microsoft is abusing it's OS monopoly in a way that is at least illegal here in the EU and I hope it is illegal by US antitrust standards too. People need to complain, specifically they need to complain to their EU Commissioner.

Not loading their publisher key is a blatant attempt to try to prevent people from running other OSes on that piece of hardware which is an abuse of their "dominant market share" and they need to be punished for it, preferably harshly

Even easier, if you have access to fancier lawyers(which any medium sized ISP and above will have) you tell them to stop or you'll sue them so hard their great great great grandchildren will be selling their kidneys to pay for the debts.

That is outgoing though, which means you have a contract with Comcast permitting them to do that(and pretty much whatever else they want), with the blacklist provider the blocked party has no contract with the list provider and therefore the list provider is out on thin ice when they ban non confirmed spamming addresses and also demand money to be unblocked in a timely manner.

If they didn't demand money for the service they have some protection in that they are not benefiting from overzealous banning but if you start demanding money you are benefiting from erroneously punishing innocents or being overly broad in your bans, $300 per IP piles up pretty quickly.
IANAL

Since you(the ISP) most likely do not have any sort of contract with the blacklist provider then yes you probably have a very good case for blackmail/defamation if the blacklist blocks an entire AS and can't prove that every single IP has been sending spam.

If you take it upon yourself to operate a blacklist and especially if you demand money for a speedy removal then yes it definitely is "your fucking problem" to make sure that the list is accurate and affects as few innocent people as possible. At least in the eyes of pretty much any court, plus the ISP's probably has access to a more expensive/better lawyer to sway the court to see things their way.

The courts will tell you to either provide evidence that every single IP has been blacklisted based on reasonable suspicion or you're liable for damages and the court will tell you to stop and never do it again. Remember that courts are generally the least tech savvy people you can imagine and that this will probably go to a civil court so the accuser doesn't have to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.
IANAL

I disagree, I find the death sentence just as despicable and I don't think that any first offense deserves life imprisonment without the possibility of parole(that is not to say I think they should be let off easy though but everyone deserves a second chance and most violent crime are crimes of passion, there is a significant chance that the offender wont fall back into serious crime unless society actively goes out of it's way to make sure that that's the only way to have a decent life after getting out) except for for mass murders and maybe for particularly heinous murders. But even if the felony is for a pretty bad crime I don't think that the offender should be further punished once they have served their jail sentence and paid their fines/damages.

Yes you do, the entire point of the EU legal threat was cross platform compatibility, i.e. you should be able to take any charger from any maker and be able to plug it into any phone. You still cannot take the wall charger delivered wikth say a Galaxy SIII and charge an iPhone 5 with it, which was the aim of the threat of legislation.