This is real life. If you add enough layers of obsfuscation, you win.
Suppose he setup a P.O. box with a fake ID for the payments, "borrowed" an unoccupied house, or just had the money sent to his neighbor's address?
There are a lot of ways to get money orders cashed, or he could have setup a checking account using a fake identity.
Obsfuscation works because all the criminal needs is to have one trick in the works that makes the investigating officer throw up his hands and say, "I don't know where else to go with this."
When Charles Babbage invented his mechanical calculating machine, no one could foresee the invention of the computer. It's a matter of both refining the device and the integration of other technologies.
This is not even close to stealing. If it is explicitly allowed by the copyright terms of Wikipedia, then they are choosing to pursue an option that the creators agreed to. How is this different from the open source community where Ubuntu takes a lot of Debian source, makes some modifications, and then releases their own distribution? As long as both distributions are useful and have enough community support to function, what exactly is the problem?
The whole bit about not having a right to not be offended is very relevant when you talk about censorship. For malicious and false statements, on the other hand, you really need to consider the motivation behind it (as well as the previously-mentioned tort law).
The law is not always and unconditionally right, but when you consider that both the motivation and possible outcome of this situation, it is clearly a case where the legal sanctions are legitimate.
Yes, but it's relatively easy to be licensed for broadcast, there are no hard-and-fast rules about "acceptable" content, and the spectrum isn't carved up and sold the way FM is. It's about as free as you can get without stepping on other people's toes.
The licensing is required because it possible (although rare) for one goon to screw up and render a chunk of spectrum unusable for a while or otherwise cause problems for other people. Radio broadcasting is like driving in this respect; it is an activity that is inherently public in some way and may therefore cause problems if it isn't done properly. Unlike... say, masturbation... which can be done in complete privacy.
You can get all the study materials you need for the FCC test and a set of ham radio equipment for a couple hundred dollars. Take a look at what's required for FM broadcasting and then tell me ham radio isn't the radio equivalent of the television "public access" channel.
Linus has already said that he will not be "updating" the kernel license to GPLv3. There was an article on/. about that very statement.
I'm not aware of any statement about GPLv3 being made by Cox. I could probably google it in less than a minute since it seems everyone has posted their take on GPLv3, but since you're the one who is relying on other people to decide whether or not GPLv3 is a good idea, I believe you ought to do the work of discovering what you need to think.
Windows 98 having stability issues with some hardware or the occasional software title is a fact. Windows 98 being constantly unstable and crashing all the time is a myth. I've had Win98 working fine on several of my home systems for years because I played games back when I had the time and because there wasn't a need to upgrade if you used it wisely.
I suspect most problems with Win98 come from the same causes as most WinXP problems:
Using Internet Explorer
Failing to apply users with correct file and system privileges
Uneducated users who click things they shouldn't or mess with system configurations that they do not fully understand
As a matter of fact, with additional functions MS included with Win98SE taken into account, 98 is one of the top three OSes from Redmond.
Seeing as Wikipedia hasn't managed to be much better than a standard dead tree encyclopedia despite all of the eyes and fingers that go into it, I'd say this is worth a shot.
Plus, this is closer to the bazaar style that worked for Linux and OpenBSD. You need a lot of motivated contributors for both projects, true. No one would dispute that the community is necessary. The component that Wikipedia lacks is true leadership. Not an ad-hoc committiee made up of whichever official editors have an interest in a particular issue, but motivated, knowledge, and skillful people who have a personal commitment to both their discipline and their role in the project. Someone who says "this needs work" or "this isn't good enough" or even "your contributions aren't up to our standards yet, so please come back to us in a few years when you're ready". The best bazaar-style development has its Linus or de Raadt fulfilling that role and delegating to trusted colleagues with the same goals.
This also addresses a flaw in Wikipedia: specifically, a group of misinformed editors can shout down a lone expert who is substantively correct on a disputed fact. I quit Wikipedia entirely because of revert wars over changes I made. When I supplied links to relevant Intel whitepapers, the information was ignored because none of the "editors" could understand it; instead, they chose to retain the vague, not-quite-there "facts" that had been reported on a somewhat popular tech fanboy site.
Having a formal process for vetting experts and giving them a degree of editorial control over articles within their field is something Wikipedia should have done from day one. I'll never bother with Wikipedia again, but this new project might be worth spending some time on.
No need for a technological replacement at all. My grandfather does crosswords when he's not painting, reading the newspaper, or playing poker.
Games aren't the only ways to keep a mind nimble, although I respect a neuroscientist who puts his money where his mouth is.
And hey... the Wii is only $250... compared that to the price of the NES adjusted for inflation, and it's not a bad deal. Especially since they're supposed to be releasing classic games for the console in the $5-$10 range. I've lost a few favorite carts while moving, and I'd get a Wii if some of those NES/SNES games will be available again.
Most applications will support burning DVDs compliant with ISO-9660, Joliet, and UDF formats. Some of them can also relax the Joliet restriction you mention. Windows will read the relaxed Joliet discs fine.
Nero can do this, and I suspect Roxio can as well (although I have not used a recent version of Roxio, I rather doubt they'd remove the capability). This is true of the full versions, though I believe it is *not* true of the stripped-down express versions.
I generally use UDF (specifically, UDF 1.02) because you can have true long filenames without breaking standards, and it's supported natively by any operating system aside from Win9x.
The source code is made available to both parties during discovery. Technically, the plaintiff has to ask the court to make it available, but since there isn't a way to investigate/litigate the matter without doing so the judge will almost certainly order the defendant to turn it over to the plaintiff for examination.
If users expect bundled software, the computer OEMs can supply it. They've been doing so for years. The old days when it was Netscape vs MSIE are a good example. Even now, they choose between Sonic, Roxio, and Nero for DVD burning. Basically, the bundling was a choice made by the company who assembled and warranteed the computer, and now the de facto choice is being made by Microsoft. Everyone gets their crappy DVD authoring package. As their CD burning package caused problems with the versions of Roxio and Nero that were on the market at the time XP was released, I can offer definitive evidence that their bundled software can cause problems with other packages that a user might want to install.
Linux distros are a little different insofar as they generally target a different demographic. You can include thousands of apps on the installation discs or in the apt/yum/portage repository because the apps don't have to hook into the OS (for the most part) and have standard methods for communication and resource sharing that rarely cause problems.
On the other hand, the distros that do set their sights on the Linux-on-the-desktop target should expect to "bundle" apps that provide such standard functionality as word processing. To get the standard Windows users to convert, these apps need to be installed automatically and prominently placed within the GUI because that's frequently how Windows users expect to find their computers. The distro maintainer is providing the appropriate software bundle instead of the computer OEM because (a) it doesn't cost anything to provide the software, (b) the user can easily remove any unnecessary or problematic packages, and (c) there are hardly any OEMs who provide Linux-based PC packages, so the distro team must assume responsibility.
In the end, someone must bundle software for the average end user. I believe this is best left to the OEMs rather than Microsoft because it allows them flexibility, reduces bloat in the OS, avoids establishing a monoculture, and avoids the possibility of problems with custom or third-party apps that the user might need (as an app certainly can't conflict with code that isn't there).
As you mentioned, I don't believe a boycott of Vista is necessary either. Poor retail sales due to weak features and high prices will be as effective at providing feedback to MS. My statement was a personal one; I've always kept at least one machine with a current version of Windows for gaming and using other software, with the exception of Win ME. In fact, I've always planned on doing so. With the additional bloat, the apparent substandard implementation of new features, the embedding of increasingly draconian DRM, and intrusive Windows licensing enforcement... well, I've changed my plans. I'm not about to rant and try to start a boycott, but I will say that Microsoft has lost me as a customer.
Did you ever stop to consider if you were being a dolt by ranting like that?
Speaking a clear, universal, and correct dialect is an important practice, as it allows us to communicate without problems to everyone else. Were you thrown off-track for a second the first time someone used the word "virii" around you? Has anyone you've known hesitated or been confused by it? The confusion--even if it is momentary--is completely unnecessary because WE ALREADY HAVE A PLURAL FORM OF THE WORD "VIRUS" that everyone knows. It's "viruses".
Learning and using the proper standards for communication in one's language of choice (or one's language of habit) is essential to clearly communicating to everyone else who is also properly educated. Indeed, higher concepts or complex ideological frameworks may require the level of specificity provided by jargon words, clear and concise grammar, and graphics.
Would you want to teach trigonometry if there were three different ways to interpret a Cartesian graph? What about teaching calculus if "differentiable" could mean six completely different things depending solely on the context in which it was used?
The real problem is that we need good education in *all* fields.
MS often bundles the software in an attempt to corner the market and stamp out competitors. Actually, if you bother to understand the law at all, this sort of behavior is exactly what must be done in order for a company to be guilty of being an abusive monopoly (for the record being a monopoly isn't illegal, it's abusing the monopoly that is).
*That* is why people get nervous when they start adding new apps to their OS. You can't find a computer on the shelf anywhere that has a DVD-RW drive but doesn't have any DVD burning software. There are a number of third-party apps, and all of the manufacturers supply one or the other on the machines that need it. Manufacturers pick something that is reasonably priced and works, and users can upgrade it, replace it, or use it as-is depending on what they want. The problems with this approach are few and far between. Linux-style bundling usually gives you a few options for each app. For instance, even though there is a default option to expedite the installtion, you can usually choose between OpenOffice and Abiword for word processing.
Microsoft is throwing in everything and the kitchen sink in an attempt to convince users that an upgrade is worthwhile. I will grant that this is different from the monopolistic abuses of the past, but it's still equally stupid. Read the article; all of those apps are half-assed at best (and this opinion comes from a traditional MS fanboy). A poor design decision isn't any better than an illegal business strategy.
I can't speak for others, but I've gotten off the bus. XP is the last version of Windows I'll be using unless Vista's successor somehow turns things around.
Maybe he didn't realize Apple had violated his patent. Patents have to be non-obvious, after all, so perhaps the violation of said patent did not become obvious until a few years after iTunes became wildly popular.
By the time games that make good use of DirectX 10 features come out, hardware manufacturers will be on the second or third release of DX10 hardware. By that time, any major bugs will be squashed, and performance bottlenecks will be fixed.
These factors are a part of my personal guideline: Never buy the first generation of any technology if you can avoid it. Other people can pay the early adopter tax to be "extended beta" testers. I'll wait until things settle down and get a higher performing and more stable product 6 months to a year later.
Yes, you're missing something. Specifically, a correct conversion factor. It's 2^64 / 8 bytes of storage, which is about 2 billion GB. Since I can get a 750 GB HD for $400 (new Seagate drve from newegg.com), I can therefore get ~2.2 billion GB for $1.2 million. And this is as an average Joe customer with no access to volume or channel pricing.
While this doesn't include the cost of SATA controllers or anything else you'd need to be able to search through that amount of data, it does show that the barrier is much lower than you might think. (I'm thinking Google's hierarchical searching algorithm would be best for this application... they did publish a paper about it... Google it if you're interested.)
For a large corporation, a crime syndicate, or a government agency, this is well within the realm of possibility. Especially since most 64-bit algorithms provide less than 64 bits of effective strength once they're attacked by experts. Hence the move to 128-bit and 256-bit keys for symmetrical algorithms. Since doubling the key length squares the number of possible values of the key, the search domain becomes impossibly large. Barring vulnerabilities in the algorithm, a 256-bit encryption scheme cannot be bruteforced by any presently conceivable computer technology.
The Nuremberg Defense didn't work at the Nuremberg Trials because the people involved did things that any sane person knows is terribly "wrong" according to just about every existing belief system.
Of course, don't let that small difference in scale dissuade you from bringing Godwin's Law into effect.
AOL did not provide any of the information necessary to identify the searchers. So while I disagree with the disclosure, this breach of privacy is on par with other acts of corporate idiocy I've seen, and based on that I would say that there wasn't any basis requiring him to refuse this order. There's no clear and compelling need to disobey an approved transfer of more-or-less anonymous data, unlike a situation where someone is ordered to kill innocent civilians by the truckful.
Finally, get a sense of proportion. Are you seriously comparing a poor privacy decision with a decision on a life-and-death matter? Tenuously exaggerated examples do not shore up tenuously supported arguments.
This probably has more to do with the fact that most retailers have zero staff who know how to properly operate their products or adjust settings. I've seen some terribly misaligned projection TVs at big-name electronics retailers, and it takes all of 5 minutes to run through the convergence procedure. All you need to fix these problems most of the time is the remote control and a few minutes of time from someone with half a clue. Sadly, the lack of a clued-in individual is an expense they're not willing to pay, and in your case it may have cost them a sale.
If there is any doubt whatsoever about this explanation, you can always go and adjust a TV yourself. Or start asking the sales drones vaguely technical questions. If you're lucky, there might be one guy in the department who knows jack, and everyone else knows to run and find him when you progress beyond the standard retail realm of buzzword bingo.
Intuitive and translucent are relative. As long as you're trying to cater to everyone, it's impossible to make anything completely intuitive and translucent. And since the largest target market is "everyone", you're not likely to see intuitive interfaces on most modern software packages and electronic devices.
This explanation is very simple and yet widely overlooked in the pursuit of the ideal user interface. The ideal user interface will, by necessity, be ideal exclusively to those users who were its target market.
The point--mentioned by previous posters I might add--is that Google has to take corrective action now, or they will have no trademark to defend.
And those aren't really legal threats. It's standard cease-and-desist verbage, nothing more. The companies receiving such letters will simply take note of the "proper" way to phrase things in their articles (perhaps adding a note to their style manuals), and business will continue as usual.
Slashdot Mirror
Blargh.
This is real life. If you add enough layers of obsfuscation, you win.
Suppose he setup a P.O. box with a fake ID for the payments, "borrowed" an unoccupied house, or just had the money sent to his neighbor's address?
There are a lot of ways to get money orders cashed, or he could have setup a checking account using a fake identity.
Obsfuscation works because all the criminal needs is to have one trick in the works that makes the investigating officer throw up his hands and say, "I don't know where else to go with this."
I believe the essential point is that this monitor *MUST* use dithering, which is a comparable reduction in quality when the specs implied otherwise.
When Charles Babbage invented his mechanical calculating machine, no one could foresee the invention of the computer. It's a matter of both refining the device and the integration of other technologies.
This is not even close to stealing. If it is explicitly allowed by the copyright terms of Wikipedia, then they are choosing to pursue an option that the creators agreed to. How is this different from the open source community where Ubuntu takes a lot of Debian source, makes some modifications, and then releases their own distribution? As long as both distributions are useful and have enough community support to function, what exactly is the problem?
The whole bit about not having a right to not be offended is very relevant when you talk about censorship. For malicious and false statements, on the other hand, you really need to consider the motivation behind it (as well as the previously-mentioned tort law).
The law is not always and unconditionally right, but when you consider that both the motivation and possible outcome of this situation, it is clearly a case where the legal sanctions are legitimate.
Yes, but it's relatively easy to be licensed for broadcast, there are no hard-and-fast rules about "acceptable" content, and the spectrum isn't carved up and sold the way FM is. It's about as free as you can get without stepping on other people's toes.
The licensing is required because it possible (although rare) for one goon to screw up and render a chunk of spectrum unusable for a while or otherwise cause problems for other people. Radio broadcasting is like driving in this respect; it is an activity that is inherently public in some way and may therefore cause problems if it isn't done properly. Unlike... say, masturbation... which can be done in complete privacy.
You can get all the study materials you need for the FCC test and a set of ham radio equipment for a couple hundred dollars. Take a look at what's required for FM broadcasting and then tell me ham radio isn't the radio equivalent of the television "public access" channel.
Good FAQ available at http://www.hello-radio.org/whatis.html
The pirates should fight for a "pirate" range in the FM spectrum where unlicensed transmitters van freely broadcast. Problem solved.
Google HAM Radio. The problem has been solved.
Linus has already said that he will not be "updating" the kernel license to GPLv3. There was an article on /. about that very statement.
I'm not aware of any statement about GPLv3 being made by Cox. I could probably google it in less than a minute since it seems everyone has posted their take on GPLv3, but since you're the one who is relying on other people to decide whether or not GPLv3 is a good idea, I believe you ought to do the work of discovering what you need to think.
I suspect most problems with Win98 come from the same causes as most WinXP problems:
As a matter of fact, with additional functions MS included with Win98SE taken into account, 98 is one of the top three OSes from Redmond.
Seeing as Wikipedia hasn't managed to be much better than a standard dead tree encyclopedia despite all of the eyes and fingers that go into it, I'd say this is worth a shot.
Plus, this is closer to the bazaar style that worked for Linux and OpenBSD. You need a lot of motivated contributors for both projects, true. No one would dispute that the community is necessary. The component that Wikipedia lacks is true leadership. Not an ad-hoc committiee made up of whichever official editors have an interest in a particular issue, but motivated, knowledge, and skillful people who have a personal commitment to both their discipline and their role in the project. Someone who says "this needs work" or "this isn't good enough" or even "your contributions aren't up to our standards yet, so please come back to us in a few years when you're ready". The best bazaar-style development has its Linus or de Raadt fulfilling that role and delegating to trusted colleagues with the same goals.
This also addresses a flaw in Wikipedia: specifically, a group of misinformed editors can shout down a lone expert who is substantively correct on a disputed fact. I quit Wikipedia entirely because of revert wars over changes I made. When I supplied links to relevant Intel whitepapers, the information was ignored because none of the "editors" could understand it; instead, they chose to retain the vague, not-quite-there "facts" that had been reported on a somewhat popular tech fanboy site.
Having a formal process for vetting experts and giving them a degree of editorial control over articles within their field is something Wikipedia should have done from day one. I'll never bother with Wikipedia again, but this new project might be worth spending some time on.
No need for a technological replacement at all. My grandfather does crosswords when he's not painting, reading the newspaper, or playing poker.
Games aren't the only ways to keep a mind nimble, although I respect a neuroscientist who puts his money where his mouth is.
And hey... the Wii is only $250... compared that to the price of the NES adjusted for inflation, and it's not a bad deal. Especially since they're supposed to be releasing classic games for the console in the $5-$10 range. I've lost a few favorite carts while moving, and I'd get a Wii if some of those NES/SNES games will be available again.
Most applications will support burning DVDs compliant with ISO-9660, Joliet, and UDF formats. Some of them can also relax the Joliet restriction you mention. Windows will read the relaxed Joliet discs fine.
Nero can do this, and I suspect Roxio can as well (although I have not used a recent version of Roxio, I rather doubt they'd remove the capability). This is true of the full versions, though I believe it is *not* true of the stripped-down express versions.
I generally use UDF (specifically, UDF 1.02) because you can have true long filenames without breaking standards, and it's supported natively by any operating system aside from Win9x.
The EULA would not absolve them from liability in the event of *intentional* malfeasance.
The source code is made available to both parties during discovery. Technically, the plaintiff has to ask the court to make it available, but since there isn't a way to investigate/litigate the matter without doing so the judge will almost certainly order the defendant to turn it over to the plaintiff for examination.
Read the article. Plasma arc = chemical breakdown. If you don't understand this, google is your friend.
If users expect bundled software, the computer OEMs can supply it. They've been doing so for years. The old days when it was Netscape vs MSIE are a good example. Even now, they choose between Sonic, Roxio, and Nero for DVD burning. Basically, the bundling was a choice made by the company who assembled and warranteed the computer, and now the de facto choice is being made by Microsoft. Everyone gets their crappy DVD authoring package. As their CD burning package caused problems with the versions of Roxio and Nero that were on the market at the time XP was released, I can offer definitive evidence that their bundled software can cause problems with other packages that a user might want to install.
Linux distros are a little different insofar as they generally target a different demographic. You can include thousands of apps on the installation discs or in the apt/yum/portage repository because the apps don't have to hook into the OS (for the most part) and have standard methods for communication and resource sharing that rarely cause problems.
On the other hand, the distros that do set their sights on the Linux-on-the-desktop target should expect to "bundle" apps that provide such standard functionality as word processing. To get the standard Windows users to convert, these apps need to be installed automatically and prominently placed within the GUI because that's frequently how Windows users expect to find their computers. The distro maintainer is providing the appropriate software bundle instead of the computer OEM because (a) it doesn't cost anything to provide the software, (b) the user can easily remove any unnecessary or problematic packages, and (c) there are hardly any OEMs who provide Linux-based PC packages, so the distro team must assume responsibility.
In the end, someone must bundle software for the average end user. I believe this is best left to the OEMs rather than Microsoft because it allows them flexibility, reduces bloat in the OS, avoids establishing a monoculture, and avoids the possibility of problems with custom or third-party apps that the user might need (as an app certainly can't conflict with code that isn't there).
As you mentioned, I don't believe a boycott of Vista is necessary either. Poor retail sales due to weak features and high prices will be as effective at providing feedback to MS. My statement was a personal one; I've always kept at least one machine with a current version of Windows for gaming and using other software, with the exception of Win ME. In fact, I've always planned on doing so. With the additional bloat, the apparent substandard implementation of new features, the embedding of increasingly draconian DRM, and intrusive Windows licensing enforcement... well, I've changed my plans. I'm not about to rant and try to start a boycott, but I will say that Microsoft has lost me as a customer.
Did you ever stop to consider if you were being a dolt by ranting like that?
Speaking a clear, universal, and correct dialect is an important practice, as it allows us to communicate without problems to everyone else. Were you thrown off-track for a second the first time someone used the word "virii" around you? Has anyone you've known hesitated or been confused by it? The confusion--even if it is momentary--is completely unnecessary because WE ALREADY HAVE A PLURAL FORM OF THE WORD "VIRUS" that everyone knows. It's "viruses".
Learning and using the proper standards for communication in one's language of choice (or one's language of habit) is essential to clearly communicating to everyone else who is also properly educated. Indeed, higher concepts or complex ideological frameworks may require the level of specificity provided by jargon words, clear and concise grammar, and graphics.
Would you want to teach trigonometry if there were three different ways to interpret a Cartesian graph? What about teaching calculus if "differentiable" could mean six completely different things depending solely on the context in which it was used?
The real problem is that we need good education in *all* fields.
MS often bundles the software in an attempt to corner the market and stamp out competitors. Actually, if you bother to understand the law at all, this sort of behavior is exactly what must be done in order for a company to be guilty of being an abusive monopoly (for the record being a monopoly isn't illegal, it's abusing the monopoly that is).
*That* is why people get nervous when they start adding new apps to their OS. You can't find a computer on the shelf anywhere that has a DVD-RW drive but doesn't have any DVD burning software. There are a number of third-party apps, and all of the manufacturers supply one or the other on the machines that need it. Manufacturers pick something that is reasonably priced and works, and users can upgrade it, replace it, or use it as-is depending on what they want. The problems with this approach are few and far between. Linux-style bundling usually gives you a few options for each app. For instance, even though there is a default option to expedite the installtion, you can usually choose between OpenOffice and Abiword for word processing.
Microsoft is throwing in everything and the kitchen sink in an attempt to convince users that an upgrade is worthwhile. I will grant that this is different from the monopolistic abuses of the past, but it's still equally stupid. Read the article; all of those apps are half-assed at best (and this opinion comes from a traditional MS fanboy). A poor design decision isn't any better than an illegal business strategy.
I can't speak for others, but I've gotten off the bus. XP is the last version of Windows I'll be using unless Vista's successor somehow turns things around.
Maybe he didn't realize Apple had violated his patent. Patents have to be non-obvious, after all, so perhaps the violation of said patent did not become obvious until a few years after iTunes became wildly popular.
That must be it.
By the time games that make good use of DirectX 10 features come out, hardware manufacturers will be on the second or third release of DX10 hardware. By that time, any major bugs will be squashed, and performance bottlenecks will be fixed.
These factors are a part of my personal guideline: Never buy the first generation of any technology if you can avoid it. Other people can pay the early adopter tax to be "extended beta" testers. I'll wait until things settle down and get a higher performing and more stable product 6 months to a year later.
Yes, you're missing something. Specifically, a correct conversion factor. It's 2^64 / 8 bytes of storage, which is about 2 billion GB. Since I can get a 750 GB HD for $400 (new Seagate drve from newegg.com), I can therefore get ~2.2 billion GB for $1.2 million. And this is as an average Joe customer with no access to volume or channel pricing.
While this doesn't include the cost of SATA controllers or anything else you'd need to be able to search through that amount of data, it does show that the barrier is much lower than you might think. (I'm thinking Google's hierarchical searching algorithm would be best for this application... they did publish a paper about it... Google it if you're interested.)
For a large corporation, a crime syndicate, or a government agency, this is well within the realm of possibility. Especially since most 64-bit algorithms provide less than 64 bits of effective strength once they're attacked by experts. Hence the move to 128-bit and 256-bit keys for symmetrical algorithms. Since doubling the key length squares the number of possible values of the key, the search domain becomes impossibly large. Barring vulnerabilities in the algorithm, a 256-bit encryption scheme cannot be bruteforced by any presently conceivable computer technology.
The Nuremberg Defense didn't work at the Nuremberg Trials because the people involved did things that any sane person knows is terribly "wrong" according to just about every existing belief system.
Of course, don't let that small difference in scale dissuade you from bringing Godwin's Law into effect.
AOL did not provide any of the information necessary to identify the searchers. So while I disagree with the disclosure, this breach of privacy is on par with other acts of corporate idiocy I've seen, and based on that I would say that there wasn't any basis requiring him to refuse this order. There's no clear and compelling need to disobey an approved transfer of more-or-less anonymous data, unlike a situation where someone is ordered to kill innocent civilians by the truckful.
Finally, get a sense of proportion. Are you seriously comparing a poor privacy decision with a decision on a life-and-death matter? Tenuously exaggerated examples do not shore up tenuously supported arguments.
This probably has more to do with the fact that most retailers have zero staff who know how to properly operate their products or adjust settings. I've seen some terribly misaligned projection TVs at big-name electronics retailers, and it takes all of 5 minutes to run through the convergence procedure. All you need to fix these problems most of the time is the remote control and a few minutes of time from someone with half a clue. Sadly, the lack of a clued-in individual is an expense they're not willing to pay, and in your case it may have cost them a sale.
If there is any doubt whatsoever about this explanation, you can always go and adjust a TV yourself. Or start asking the sales drones vaguely technical questions. If you're lucky, there might be one guy in the department who knows jack, and everyone else knows to run and find him when you progress beyond the standard retail realm of buzzword bingo.
Intuitive and translucent are relative. As long as you're trying to cater to everyone, it's impossible to make anything completely intuitive and translucent. And since the largest target market is "everyone", you're not likely to see intuitive interfaces on most modern software packages and electronic devices.
This explanation is very simple and yet widely overlooked in the pursuit of the ideal user interface. The ideal user interface will, by necessity, be ideal exclusively to those users who were its target market.
The point--mentioned by previous posters I might add--is that Google has to take corrective action now, or they will have no trademark to defend.
And those aren't really legal threats. It's standard cease-and-desist verbage, nothing more. The companies receiving such letters will simply take note of the "proper" way to phrase things in their articles (perhaps adding a note to their style manuals), and business will continue as usual.