It's not a good point at all, because the people did not have the power to remove a monarchy once they realized they had a problem. You only have to look at the likes of IBM, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Yahoo, MySpace, etc to see that companies in a dominant market position have no guarantee of holding that position any longer than their customers want.
"I appreciate the point the article is trying to make, but I think it's a bit unfair to paint any opposition as strictly trying to keep a captive market."
It's up to optometrists to convince the paying public that it's worth paying more to get the benefits you describe. That's called competition. Running to the government for a law change that kills off your competitors instead of competing on merit is the very definition of a captive market.
Thank you Captain Obvious for explaining what everybody already knew. The point is not whether the information exists, it's whether law enforcement should be able to get it without a warrant.
Why don't you put your efforts into explaining something useful, like why the public shouldn't expect this basic legal check procedure to be used before accessing info that most people would prefer to be kept private.
Because it's very common boilerplate in lots of widely used services. If there was a serious concern with this particular service's TOS, there would be a lot of well known problems with all the other services that say the same thing. But there isn't, so it's not freakout worthy.
I was pretty sympathetic for this guy right 'til the end. Now I'm madder at him than I am at Chase. If you're happy to accept this nonsense as an appropriate response to terrorism then you're already well on the way to losing the fight.
The whole driver of this issue is that Apple prevents brute-forcing by limiting the amount of attempts that can be made to ten before deleting the encryption key. That's what the FBI was trying to force Apple to bypass. It's almost like you haven't read a single thing about this story until today...
Offers up a believable explanation ("It stimulated creative people around the world to see what they might be able to do.") and follows up straight away with an outright lie ("...the San Bernardino case was not about trying to send a message or set a precedent; it was and is about fully investigating a terrorist attack.") that basically everyone but the FBI admits is false.
" What they REALLY just did is announce to the world that Apple's security isn't actually secure. It's going to cost Apple a lot of money."
How is this any different to all the other times vulnerabilities are found and patched in ALL phone's (not just iPhones). Did they all cost the manufacturers a lot of money too? Why do you think this one's so different?
"I'm even less fond of paying $5 for a soda and another $5 for a bag of popcorn. In most theaters, I can't get a beer or real food with my movie"
Like Geno0wl said, you can legitimately bitch about the crazy prices but I wish everyone would quit whining about the high prices and low quality of the food. Just don't buy it! No movie is long enough that you can't survive without sugary sustenance. If people bought less the prices would drop in response. If you absolutely must snack mid-movie, buy it elsewhere.
Personally many trips to the movies also involve a food and drinks at a bar beforehand with my wife or friends, which makes going to the movies a thoroughly enjoyable social experience you can't truly replicate at home.