You would have far less problems with speeding if all cars just work and had a speed limiter installed that just worked.
Some cars are configured this way already.
There would be less theft if every car was bio-keyed to the person and every person tracked...
You mean like the devices installed in some people convicted of a DUI?
Yes, since you provided no example that was useful to your point, you should probably go on.
Why are the privacy nutcases always so ready to imagine the most terrible wrongs about potential abuse of power by the government, but think it is super okay to give all control to a corporation?
Because I HAVE to deal with the government. I don't have to deal with any particular corporation, I can use an alternative or not use them at all.
I really don't know if your kind can ever learn, there have been enough example shown that when companies get to comfortable with themselves, it is bad for their customers.
So because someone doesn't share your point of view they are incapable of learning? No one is arguing that companies can't do bad things, just right now, Apple isn't, so no one cares. Sure, they probably will eventually, but why give up something you can use now in exchange for the possibility (however likely) that it may be something you don't want to use in the future? Most people are OK with the appstore and the way Apples devices work right now, so they buy them. If they become unhappy in the future, they'll stop buying them.
Cable companies have a tendancies to think everyone must have TV so they can do whatever they want because they have a monopoly, except more and more people are ditching cable entirely in favor of other sources of media or just foregoing the content completely cause its really not that good. When enough of their customers stop paying, they'll change or go away, either way, we win, so your argument that Apple may go bad is just silly. Of course they'll try to go bad, they want to make as much money as possible. At that point we'll deal with it, until then we'll enjoy the ride.
The FSF has some points, but they are also well off the extremist deep end so often that no one except other nutjobs really give a shit what they say anymore. They've cried wolf so many times that they've lost clout. Doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, the only people that give a shit are a tiny percentage of the population without enough people to matter to anyone.
If you want to see why the FSF is right, install IE6 as your main and only browser.
I've got several machines that are clean installs of Windows with 1 or 2 specific apps on them, completely unpatched, running IE6, which occasionally I'll use to browse something on the Internet. Still no infections. Of course, I go to sites I know are safe, generally to get documentation or info about the apps running on those machines for various reasons. Am I supposed to be concerned about the fact that it doesn't render right (it does good enough that I can get the job done as needed) or that I may get infected (still hasn't happened)? Other than being several years old and well known for exploiting I dont get your point. I fail to see how IE6 differs from Firefox 1.0 in either respect. Yes, if you use old outdated software its more likely to not work with current data and more likely someone will know of the exploits in it. Very good, common sense 101 there.