This is the reason Tim Cook got dragged before the Senate committee. Apple does almost zero lobbying, especially compared to the entertainment and petroleum industries. I found the idea of Senator Levin, of Michigan, leading the charge to be laughable. The auto industry has had several bailouts. They get all sorts of trade protections (like the "chicken tax," among others). Yet, the "US" auto industry makes quite a few of their products in Canada and Mexico. How much of the money from Ford and GM's international sales is brought back to the US - paying the full 35% tax rate? You can bet that every member of Congress will be fighting hard to have the primary industry in their state/district exempted from the new rules. Of course, this was really just a dog and pony show. No real reform bill would ever make it through the current Congress. But the idea that Apple, HP, and Microsoft are somehow doing something out of the ordinary is stupid. There's no incentive to bring the money back and give more than a third of it to the government. It's not as if the government is going to do anything constructive with it, besides wasting more money on worthless defense programs.

BART does not have to provide a communications infrastructure to facilitate them. They were not actively prohibiting any free expression. The government may not be able to inhibit speech, but that doesn't mean it should be required to enable it either. Dealing with unruly protestors is reactive. By the time the police wait long enough to be justified in detaining and arresting protestors (most of whom will not go quietly), it's too late. It's already cost taxpayers tons of money that state and local governments in California simply do not have. Most of the time protestors are arrested, then released with no charges or punishment. It's too costly.

The government is required to operate the postal service, but that's it. The government is not required to provide telephone, internet or even cell service. It cannot inhibit the press, but isn't required to operate media organizations. The cell repeaters are on BART property and they can shut them down whenever they please for whatever reason they like.

The first amendment only covers speech, it does not cover acts of civil disobedience, obstructing public services or destruction of property. That is what happened during the last protest. The first amendment is not absolute. Public safety must also be taken into consideration. The commuters trying to use BART should not be forced to listen to protests or have their activities disrupted by malcontents.

Except it isn't entirely tax-funded. It also collects use fees in the form of fares. The cell repeaters are there for the convenience of paying riders, not the general public. There was a protest over the same incident about a week earlier. That protest was not orderly. Protesters were trying to crowd trains and were climbing atop the trains to try and halt service. That isn't safe either. This was a proactive measure to prevent that type of protest from happening again. I'm all for freedom of speech. Protestors can hold up signs, chant, beat drums and/or have some jerk-off spouting nonsense into a bullhorn. I'm totally fine with that. What they do not have the right to do is try and force me to listen to them. If I want to ignore them and walk past, and get home to my family or just go about my business, I should be able to. We've moved beyond peaceful protest. The comparisons to Egypt and Syria are pretty lame and are being used to dramatize the situation. Every month the jackasses at Criitcal Mass block traffic all over San Francisco. The cops don't even arrest them. Instead, they actually protect them from frustrated motorists. So I agree, they can fuck right off.

Most of the credible research being conducted is showing that there is a biological component to sexual orientation. Most mental health professionals agree that "reparative therapy" to change sexual orientation is harmful. This isn't just a conflict of beliefs, it is very much like the creationism vs evolution debate - one side has things like facts and research, the other side has an irrational belief system with absolutely zero credible evidence supporting it. That's a huge difference.

I'm torn because I don't think they should be censored. But I have every right to point out the fact that they're sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigots.

The point is that discrimination based on sexual orientation hasn't yet become as distasteful as other forms of discrimination. Would you be supporting a KKK app? How about one explaining how women are inferior? Or how about one explaining how Jews are the cause of our problems and offering up a ministry to convert them? No? But with sexual orientation, the issue is still "debatable" even though there's nothing but pseudoscience and junk science supporting it. Give me a break.

I'm sorry but fighting for my right to be treated equally under the law isn't trying to force my views on the rest of the population. I'm not trying to recruit anyone. If you're hetero and happy, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with being discriminated against. Homophobia has no place in government policy. We're finally phasing out DADT, now we can work on getting rid of DOMA and passing ENDA. Believe it or not, but most of us LGBTs would be happy to live our lives in peace and not raise a fuss. But the religious right won't allow that.

As for being a mere preference, the overwhelming majority of psychologists and psychiatrists consider sexual orientation to go well beyond simple preference. Nor does research show that sexual orientation is mutable. People have the right to their beliefs, but only over their own lives. Those beliefs should be allowed to be challenged by things like oh, facts. Nor should irrational belief be the basis for public policy. And that's where you completely miss the point. One side has only belief and not one shred of credible evidence to back up their view. Hint - it's not the LGBTs.

Likely the same way SWA kept their fares low when fuel prices hit the roof - they spent a bunch of money up front to buy large quantities when the price was low. Apple knows they're going to sell a lot of iPads, so they can negotiate sweet deals and lock in component prices by promising a lot of sustained, steady business. If you know you're going to sell a lot of something without having to do a lot of legwork to move the product, you can cut back on overhead and offer a better deal.

The problem with Android tablets is instead of one manufacturing securing components for a single device, they all have to compete with each other, in addition to Apple. OTOH, Apple has to bear the burden of software R&D that competitors don't. But it's not just about competing products, but competing business models.

Considering the iPhone has the same functionality as the iPod Touch - which is a pretty good media player - than I'd say one of your criteria is met. Sure, not every app on the App Store is a gem, I never claimed that. I doubt every available app on Blackberry App World is either. But Apple has sold a lot of iPhones. that has, in turn, attracted a lot of developers to the platform. If you'd actually looked at what's available, there are quite a few good, distinct apps out there. It isn't all rubbish.

But it's par for the course. Any time something becomes popular, especially with ordinary folks, then it must be bad. If a book sells well, it must have little literary value. Since people like the iPhone and it sells well, it must be a platform full of mundane apps that people who want to get things done should steer clear of. I mean, it couldn't possibly be because Apple took a lot of care and spent a lot of time and effort making a good product and ecosystem. No, of course not. We must all be sheep who drink the Kool-Aid and mindlessly do whatever Jobs tells us.

I would argue the point about iOS devices being more about form than function. With the explosion of apps, iOS devices are just as functional, if not more functional than Blackberry, WinMo or Android devices. About the only hardware function the iPhone lacks compared to other shipping (not announced) devices is support for NFC. When the iPhone first came out, its functionality was limited. This was partially due to Apple's tradition of not slapping new tech into their devices in order to be buzzword compliant and waiting until they can do a more polished implementation. This is in stark contrast to Google's perpetual beta method. Apple has added a lot of functionality with each iOS update and third-party devs can add even more.

Apple is one of the few tech companies that has both solid engineering as well as good design (hardware and software). Their laptops are very functional as well as being very well designed. Apple may jump on every new technology and implement it right away, but that doesn't mean they don't value function. It means they don't want to ship half-baked solutions. But there is little a Blackberry, WinMo, Android or webOS device can do that iOS can't.

That being said, I can see how some might hit the walls of the walled garden (I haven't), or may prefer to tinker with their products and such. It's all good. I just hate it when anyone who uses an Apple product is immediately dismissed as being ignorant and uniformed, shallow, etc. Some of us are actually well aware of the alternatives and choose Apple over the other options. Other people, informed or not, will make different choices and that's OK. I don't think people who use Windows are idiots. I understand some people who bathe regularly like Linux. We all have different needs and desires.

I would and did. I was annoyed by the announcement at first, but then I went on the customer service site and looked at my past data usage. I never came close to 200MB. It's as AT&T stated - it's enough for 65% of their smartphone customers. I check email, I browse the web, I read news apps. I don't stream Pandora over the 3G network all day. I don't stream movies over the cell network. I can wait to watch that YouTube video until I'm on WiFi or I get home - and I'm around WiFi a lot. I mostly use the phone for the apps, and the ones I use don't require tons of data. When I'm away from home and out with others, I try (but don't always succeed) to leave the internets behind and interact with real people in real time. In the meantime, I'm happy to be saving $15/month. I do come close to going over when I travel, but that isn't often. AT&T will let you upgrade to the 2GB plan for the month, then switch back. I suppose we like the perceived notion of unlimited and not having to worry about overage charges, but in reality, the network isn't unlimited. I have no issues with AT&T charging the few users who consume much more data more money. My only complaint is that for my $15/month, I should at least get half a gig of data. But VZW is even stingier and only allots 150MB.

There is an update that speeds up iOS 4 on the iPhone 3G. Runs great on my 3GS. I plan on getting rid of the iPhone however, not because of Apple, but rather AT&T. In any case, Android is open - to the carrier, not to the end user. Try rooting your G2, it will reinstall the old OS. The Sprint handsets ship with that awful NASCAR app that can't be deleted. Buy a Samsung Fascinate on Verizon and you're stuck using Bing as your search engine. Sure, techies could root the phone, but most users can't or won't. Oh, and as for apps, the carriers can also prevent users from installing apps from anywhere other than the Android Market (or soon, their own stores). Android is only as open as the carrier allows it to be. I've yet to hit the wall of the walled garden. If I want to look at adult material, there's not an app for that, but there is a whole internet for that. Google Voice is being allowed. I do wish they'd allow Swype. But overall the problem isn't Apple or Google or HTC or Motorola, it's the wireless companies that prevent any handset from being completely open.

No, I'm getting sick of people complaining about news sites posting Apple stories...

I can understand that, but how is this any different from the Nintendo DS or Wii, or the PSP and PS3 or the Xbox 360? They also take a huge chunk for licensing and will state which programs they will or won't allow on their devices. In the case of MS, you can write games using XNA, but they get approved by MS and sold on XBL Marketplace. Also, with newer Android handsets the carriers are going to start locking them down so that apps can only be installed using the Android Marketplace. You'll need to jailbreak those to get past that walled garden (though the wall is a bit lower). In addition, Android essentially means Google services, trusting them with your information. MobileMe is optional, I get to keep all my data on my computer and sync it to the phone rather than keeping it on Google's "cloud". I get why people are upset about it, but I suppose it depends on whether or not you think of the iPhone as a handheld device or as a computing platform.