Until someone discovers communications using the uncertainty principle and cell phones become obsolete. What you herald as an eternal oligopoly is only a short term inconvenience. You survived 4 years ago without your iphone, you can now survive with a tablet with forward facing camera. Real capitalism allows for this. Your paranoia will force restrictions to break up the oligopoly by forcing people into the same old technology. It happens again and again, regulation kills innovation.

Why does this look like a doomed project from the begining? In the age of touch screens, a button? really. My current phone has the facebook app, email, text messages, web browser and address book that already integrate with facebook. What more is there?

Always amazes me that the aupposedly smart /. reader will turn anything like this into an arguement over what produces or prevents the production of a body count. I mean comparing that 1000 people will die with scanners versus few people if there was no scanners. Please look up the definition of terrorism and the desired effect of that type of warfare. Heck, it's even in the name. It is to foment terror. Yes a measly 3000 people died in the towers but that body count was not the true success of that attack. It was the TERROR! People who were no were near new York were affected: fear to fly; fear of losing their job (yes my company's reason for going bankrupt was 911); fear of making ends meet; fear of another attack; fear of travelling abroad. Compare those numbers now and you can see that 911 is easily a success at making 300 million people have terror. So 100 people a year could get cancer in a year of going through a scanner. To get the risk, i suppose you have to know the number of people that would go through the scanners and most would go through it more than once. Are people less afraid to fly than before? If yes, then it is a success.

He is wrong in every point and even contradicts himself later on. Marx was completely wrong and these points that the author brings out are just regurgitated progressive bullet point. Totally antithetical or his purported statement that he is a capitalist in all forms "except for these few things" I can spot a liberal a mile away.
Immiseration: You have to squint to make his point work. Yes, the percentage of the wealth pie has not changed, but because of increased production, the whole pie has grown beyond the expected. Just look at your own life. Simple example: how many TVs did you have in the 80's, how many do you have now? A family spends the same percentage on TV's now that they did then, YOU JUST GET MORE TV's!
Crisis: Really? Overproduction? Not enough people being able to buy the excess? Completely false. Although recently the downturn in the economy has resulted in a decrease in demand, production has followed suit and been reduced. This is why WE HAVE UNEMPLOYMENT! These "evil" corporate managers are smart enough to reduce production and not keep costly inventory in storage. Hello layoffs.
Stagnation: Corporate profits have increased. This is the great lie of liberalism, which is that corporate profits mean that some fat CEO will take cash and stick it in his vault at his plush estate. This is not how wealth works. Cash in your pocket (or under your mattress) is not wealth. Wealth and worth is making money work. Corporations with profit will spend that profit on something. Maybe that something will reduce the tax footprint (as in salaries) or will increase value (as in new buildings) Both these things become prosperity as in some Joe worker taking home a paycheck and not an unemployment check or as another company getting work building instead of laying off contractor workers.
Alienation: Really? Meetings and cubicles cause suffering, what does he mean, should everyone have a masseuse? Look at how a factory worker did his job in the past compared to now. This is a function of increased production per worker. A tree harvester needs only one operator to cut down several trees but a hand saw needed a team to drop a single tree.
False consciousness: Exploitation examples Wal-Mart and McDonalds? Typical liberal boogiemen, I will let you know next time I visit those businesses, how many workers are chained to their station and raising a family of twelve with the salary. Another liberal lie, doesn't it stand to reason that there are more unskilled workers than skilled workers since we were all born without an education? Wouldn't companies that employed unskilled labor have more employees?
Commodity fetishism: We want and get faster, bigger, better, a contradiction to stagnation and Immiseration, We can get faster and bigger, if you want. Not because we worship those things but because IT'S NO ONE BUSINESS. Not a communist? HA! this shows the yearning for central planning, only they can give you the correct quantity and quality that you need.
Conclusion: YOU ARE WRONG COMMIE!

Wow, some thick class envy. The real truth is that these CEO don't give two shits about you since you are waiting for wealth resdistribution and government sposored IPads and won't buy his stuff. He cares about me because he gave me the opportunity to buy stuff I want.

Another freedom goes down the drain. This is something truly fascist. An obvious way of controlling the masses all in the interest of the safety of the children. Ultimate effect, children becoming wards of the state.

Maybe because you are an engineer you did not pay attention during macro economics class. Reagan did not take in less money after reducing tax rate, The total revenue actually increased! It always does this, why, because roughly every dollar taken in in taxes cost the economy 2 dollars. Reducing taxes also produces more tax payers since economic pressure to circulate money increases. Wouldn't you drive more if fuel prices were lower. Same thing, there is so much money being held for raininy day because its too hard to see how this works. The smart money is being stored so that it can't be taxed because too many people who think like you are in charge of the government. Well actually they don't think like you, they know the truth but would rather have more poser over you than actually do something to help: Like a tax holiday that last 6 months, or reducing the debt ceiling. If you think you should pay more taxes, please send the government more of you paycheck or income, stop trying to volunteer my money so that its get flushed down the toilet!

How the hell did all of you hear aout this if the government is muzzling it?

Really, All you supposedly intelligent geeks really believe the communist president that borrowing more money is the only way to pay bills! I'd like to see you try that with the credit card companies you have: Tell them you need a bigger credit limit because you have more debt than your take home pay and see how far that gets you. The one that's holding the country hostage and threatening people is the President. He won't stop unless he gets his way. It is inconceivable that the only output of funds happens to be Social Security, and the military and nothing else. What do you do when you need to pay bills? You stop F**king spending money on entertainment. But oh no, Obama thinks all the money made in the US belongs to him and he will tell you what is fair for you to keep!

I am always floored how intelligent educated people will argue for something as ridiculous as people being under-taxed. There is no way a person can really believe that it would be more fair if more taxes are collected simply on the fantasy that if etailers are punished somehow brick retailer will get more customers? Do people really forget that any activity that is punished with more taxes will reduce. On the other side, brick retailers will not see any increase in business from taxing etailers unless their own taxes are reduced. The belief that fairness is that all parties get punished equally is the fundamental flaw in liberal ideology. I hope Amazon has the balls to fight this and them tell the California Government to F- themselves as they sell their products only to the other 49 states if they were loose.

You mean like the law that says you must have a federal government license to sell marijuana and then there is no way to get a license is not a ban on marijuana? The end result is a ban and unfavorably gives an artificial advantage to GE and other big manufacturers so little makers have no hope of competing. The government should stay the hell out of our homes whether it's pot or lightbulbs. Let me use the energy I can pay for and let me use whatever lightbulb I want. Giving big corporations an advantage through government interference is not CONSERVATISM!

I was always of the belief that Microsoft desktop was the most attacked because it was the most popular. It's a good contrast to see how Android is affected by its own popularity

Incorrect, left leaning people are lazy and put form over substance. They don't understand the consequences of doing something because it feels good instead of being good. Google is and excellent example with their vision statement: Do no evil which means nothing since they are in the search/technology business. Form over substance: "No Evil" sounds good, feels good. But by whose interpretation? Someone somewhere can determine that it is evil to fire the google employees in China so they bow to the government there. Google will however ignore the Iranian Government, lobby the US government and market themselves in a grand scale. Now don't get me wrong, I love the sucess of Google and any other US company. But the "Do No Evil" vision means they have to explain they are not evil, Anyone that has to explain how good they are will stab you when your back is turned. "A computer on every desktop" is a vision that is extremely clear. You know what they are doing, it can easily be countered. How do you counter NO EVIL, With Evil? It is very easy to set up the competition as evil if they do anything to compete with NO EVIL. Once all the competition called evil, who wants to use it. And you all know how much /. loves a monopoly.

That's the point. The belief that war should be clean as a hospital room is what prolongs wars. this fear of not hurting civilians is very new and has never happened before. No other war has ever been fought without hurting civilians and some have been ended by hurting civilians. What is wrong with this accusation is that showing the videos and internal papers is that someone's feelings are hurt (i.e. next of kin, grieving civilians back home, etc.). It is naive to assume that this does not go on. Everyone who cares enough knows that this goes on. As for your suggestion, sorry, but wars are necessary and should be fought with no restraints so that the enemy will not fight them again. Ask the japanese how likely they are to start another war. What recruits the enemy is the likelyhood of winning, not hurting their feelings. The Soviet's stop fighting in Afghanistan? No! they lost the war. That is why there aren't any Soviets anymore.

In line with your logic, I have the brooklyn bridge for sale for you cheap!