1) You've attacked "general-purpose" computers that are turned into controlled platforms.<p>Without moving from my chair, I can see the following "general-purpose" computers that have been turned into controlled platforms.<p>A Directv HD DVR.  A Sony Playstation.  A Nintendo Wii.  A TomTom GPS.  A Samsung Television.  A Treadmill.  A BlackBerry.  An iPod Touch.  A Logitech Remote Control.<p>Precisely when should I be outraged that a device's capabilities aren't as general-purpose as you'd prefer?  Heck, some of those devices (the television, GPS, and treadmill) even run Linux, yet are "crippled" by their manufacturers.<p>2) I'm not ok with them actively trying to stop you from removing those limitations on your own device,<p>Every trade has two sides.  If a seller says "I will sell this to you for X if you agree not to do Y", that's a trade that you can either accept or reject.  I fail to see why you, as a buyer, should have a right to demand that <i>all</i> rights transfer for a particular price if the seller doesn't want to transfer them all for that price.<p>So long as it's reasonably clear, and disclosed, I fail to see the problem.<p>3) "calling you a criminal" ... "easier to enforce user-hostile laws like CBDTPA"<p>Blaming a specific, unreleased non-general computer for laws you don't like is almost comic.  I say 'almost' because it's really kind of annoying that you want to strip the rights of innovators to make what they want, in the name of 'freedom'.<p>If I want to wrap a processor, input method and display up in a manner that precludes using it for general purpose computing, as a means to solve a problem, I should have every right to do it and sell it.  And you can buy it or not buy it.<p>But claiming it's responsible for every law you don't like, that it's an assault on property rights, and that it's an attack on constructivist education, free culture or decentralized power is utter and complete rubbish.