And Apple have come out saying that there will be no silly apps anymore, specifically giving fart apps as an example of said silliness, and the lead approver's panda fart apps remain in the store - I would google for a link, but I'm too lazy.

Which is a handy way of giving him a monopoly on the (apparently important, but who would have guessed it) fart app sector of the app store.

You're paying so Microsoft can pay a graphic designer to develop a cool-looking video bashing the competition, obviously.

If they don't have the money, maybe they should consider using the library to get the book? That's where a lot of my books come from, and they're free...

But they could be using the same scanned ISBN network info to sell the books that are worth something (not many of these books are) at market price, and using the extra cash to buy more books or even help to provide services to the poorer areas of their towns, such as mobile libraries or remedial reading classes. If it was about giving back to the community, that would surely be more valuable? Besides, if it was a straight giveaway, they wouldn't charge for the books at all.

I read the article a couple of days ago (in slate, not salon) and what struck me was the amount of money that is being thrown away here. Just 'cod taxpayer money was used in the first instance, doesn't mean that people shouldn't think about their resources at this stage.

And of course the very concept of concentration camps is a British thing, invented during the Anglo-Boer war in South Africa.

In fact, Apple did. I just got my case for this today, which I chose through the iphone case app. There were a few options, the bumper one being one of them, but I thought "That's not going to stop scratches on the glass back of the phone" so I went with one of these clip-on ones.

I'll get back to you on whether it was a good choice in a couple of days, I guess.

I used to have twin albino rats, which had a genetic defect that caused them to bleed (pus or something) out of their eyes, and be blind (honestly!). They looked like zombies.

Jesus, you just freaked me out way more than TFA's videos. Never go into research like this, OK?

I doubt that would matter. China has a competitive advantage in the manufacturing side, so unless you can infringe on a patent and beat them out in making whatever, infringing a patent really wouldn't be too much of a big deal.

Of course, this doesn't take into account any software patents. But I guess the lack of worker's rights in China probably make their coding competitive for similar reasons that their manufacturing is.

Except the law is not on their side. This is from an article about this on Wired.com, though, so you're welcome to take it from whence it comes.

the basic gist of this is that in the UK, where these guys have been practicing, there is no statutory claim to damages, and the lawyers in the UK system in a case like this would usually be able to claim only as much as the retail price of one item in damages. That would mean 75p in the case of a single downloaded music track.

The law firms are sending letters of demand for much more than this, and sending them to people in financial difficulty - who cannot afford to get legal representation, and who often pay up to make it go away. Hearing about massive damages awarded in cases similar to this in the States probably is a factor.

The lawyers typically don't go after people who haven't paid, and bring them to court. But one of them is considering moving from the UK to the US just because of the statuary damages angle that RIAA have managed to make law.

The wired article is here -http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/the-legal-blackmail-business/ - so everyone can ignore that one, as well, and write whatever comments they feel.

For me, the issue here is the use of copyright law to stop this. I don't see why the police would have to get a copyright exemption for the creation of a database, as they are not planning to make or sell shoes with similar patterns.

As far as I can see it, this is research of an academic nature. Now, if people want to go after the police here in a civil liberties and person's rights issue - and I don't think there's an issue with these in this case anyway, because I don't see how the shoes you wear now, or may buy in the future, are unique enough to qualify as rights-qualifying - then that's fine. But copyright this is manifestly not.

I don't think it's meant to be completely unavailable to them, more like they're just not being in-your-face about selling this to them or their kids.

If anyone wants it, they can go off-base and get the game. It's just not going to be waiting at the corner store, ready to cause a breakdown, when a wife or kid of a recently dead soldier walks in.

Field hockey.

And THAT was probably his best-reasoned and highest quality argument.

The rest of his argument is based off of eyeballing the flow rate of a video of oil and gas coming out of a pipe for which he can't even get an accurate diameter, and then incorrectly guessing the pressure, and then using his fishpond as an analogy.

Yep - I'm convinced.