Is this where we find that Neo is from the Planet Zeist?

Doesn't it seem wrong for the US gov't to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?"

Does it seem wrong? Yes.

Is it surprising with this Administration, coming from a made-up post that was not vetted by Congress and is not supposed to have any operational power? Not in the least.

Just to make sure the record is straight on this... As of Bush's last year in office, the national debt was just over 400 Billion. That is a large number, no doubt, and we were not so happy with that.

President Obama and the Democrat Controlled Congress, in comparison, pushed it to just over 1.85 Trillion... or in comparative numbers, 1,850 Billion Dollars. That is a lot more than +400 Billion.

So yes, we are "jawing about fiscal responsibility" because the numbers as produced by the OMB are pretty clear.

This might be why there is confusion. Quoting this article:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ''one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.''

Moreover, Mr. Obama's own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn't sure if his grandfather's two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite. (O.K., maybe Mr. Obama should just give up on Alabama.)

There is the Geek way of defining it: "No filtering, blocking, or censoring of content going across the wire." (simplified, but you get my point)

The other is the politician way of defining it: "all speech on the Internet must be neutral and balanced". Essentially, the equivalent of the "Fairness Doctrine" that was imposed (and revoked) on the visual and audio media years and years ago.

Unfortunately, this distinction is lost in a lot of these discussions. Do not assume that just because it says "Net Neutrality", that it is defined as you think it is.

For the record, I am for the former and against the latter.

I hate to break it to you, but I would, and have, taken this exact same position, no matter what company does it. That it is Apple doing this shady action is irrelevant.

It is a privately owned company (i.e. Not the Government) removing conversations from their website that they do not wish discussed on their property. They are well within their rights to do so.

If they were performing this action or disrupting the conversation someplace other than their own property, that would be a huge! ...but on their own support forums? Sorry, I don't see the issue. The CS rating is a story worth discussing, but if Apple doesn't want it done on their site, there are other places (such as here) to do it.

...at least personally.

I remember after playing Need for Speed for a few hours with my friends (the original one that came out on the 3DO) we would go out to get something eat and found that our reflexes were still reacting to the game while the driving the real car. We found it amusing that our brain was telling us to take the turn at full-speed and cut the guy next to us off, but that was about it.

In that case, I'd have to question the social utility of colleges in a capitalist economy. The number of English and Philosophy majors capitalism can profitably use is vanishingly small, where the number of Engineers and actual professionals capitalism can use is comparatively huge.

America, currently being a Free Capitalist Market (hey, only 33% of it is Command, Give His Highness some more time to fix that) means that we can have as many English & Philosophy Majors as the market can bear. If they cannot find a job in their market, then they can go perform unskilled labor.

Still more needed, though, is UNSKILLED LABOR, apparently, given the eternal quest by our crony-controlled federal government for illegal aliens and the amount of times I've heard "You're overqualified" from HR idiots.

Fixed that for ya.

For those that don't feel like making that extra click, here is what my browser turned that link into: http://xn--4gbrim.xn----rmckbbajlc6dj7bxne2c.xn--wgbh1c/ar/default.aspx

Seems to work across FF, IE, and Chrome.

Wow, a little bit of criticism, and you call me a douche bag? Is that how arguments are won these days? Assault the speaker to force them to be quiet?

But ignoring your insult, lets get to the "conned" statement. How exactly were you "conned"?

I have a simple solution for you: Don't buy an Apple Product. Buy something else and keep your money out of Apple's bank accounts. See? Issue resolved.

The Freedom of Speech given by the First Amendment is not a blanket Right that lets you say whatever you want wherever you want. Truth is, it only applies to what the Government can keep you from doing, not a privately owned corporation. The Constitution was written to define the rights the government has to grant us and what they cannot take away.

Apple, IBM, the guys who owns the Theatre down the block, or even the Mom-n-Pop store owner have the right to tell you "No, you cannot do/say that on my property, go away". For the Brick and Mortar stores, that involves their land (which is why you can protest on the public sidewalk). For Apple, that involves their Store. (Notice, I did not say the device was their property, just the App Store)

Is this their first version of this. Hrm, thanks, but I'll wait for the 2nd and 4th versions.

"...it's all about money and learning from history to protect your business."

Congratulations, you JUST learned Economics 101. By earning a PROFIT (you mean that hasn't been outlaw yet!?) he is able to keep his employees, well, employed, make more products, make more money, continue to contribute to charity, pay taxes, offer benefits, hire more people, rise-and-repeat.

So why is that a bad thing again?