All he has to do is publish his EDL (edit decision list) and just state his exact source material (in a commercially available form, of course).

As the editor, the EDL is Topher Grace's copyrighted work, and as the EDL doesn't actually contain any of the content of the movies there is no way Lucas et al. could claim copyright infringement.

It is then the fans who can rip the content from the sources and use the EDL to assemble their own copy of the fan edit.

By stating the source material in a commercially available form, he isn't inducing the fans to commit copyright infringement, so they can't really get him for anythng.

I heard about this some years ago, and the reason was rather sinister.
The way I heard it is that nuclear non-proliferation treaties that the US has signed to limit the number of warheads in its arsenal. However warheads in transit do not count towards this total, and in the interests of security the US is not obliged to reveal how many warheads it has in transit at any one time or where they are going. By keeping a percentage of it arsenal perpetually driving around the US, the US government can effectively sidestep nuclear warhead limits imposed by non-proliferation treaties.

What they don't show you is the all of other iPads they did this to that didn't survive the fall. How many takes was it until they got the money shot?

Seriously, Apple seems to be grasping at straws for any edge over Android phones. I'm not going to make comparisons between Siri and Google Voice Search, as plenty of others are doing that. What I will say is that Siri (and other voice command systems) are gimmicks at best. Unless their entire client base is visually impaired, I doubt that it will see any serious day-to-day use once the novelty has worn off. Texting and twitter are growing because people aren't talking into their phones. What makes Apple think that Siri will change that trend?

1) F/RAND doesn't mean free. Apple effectively wants to pay nothing, and Samsung aren't willing to roll over. Nokia had the same issue and Apple settled with them before anything could be established in case law (for which no details have been made public - which has lead some to believe that Apple would have lost). Samsung have entered into patent cross-licensing arrangements with other manufacturers who license their patents. Samsung are claiming (amongst other things) that such cross-licensing deals are an established norm and can be considered both Fair and Reasonable in the industry.

2) Apple haven't brought licenses from Samsung. Just because their suppliers may have a license to produce components that are subject to those patents, doesn't automatically mean that that license carries on to Apple. It depends on the terms of the license the component manufacturers have. Samsung claim that Infineon didn't have any license, so if Apple used Infineon 3G chips how can they have a license?

Given that Apple have known about GSM/3G patents since before they released the first iPhone, yet continue to release products without sorting this license issue out doesn't give them as much of a leg to stand on as people think they do.

This could potentially work against Apple if Samsung go after the iPhone 4S on Oz. Precedent has been set, and it would be quite difficult for Apple to argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone4S if Samsung decide to assert their hardware patents.

But to Apple, the iPhone5 represets a massive part of their total product line. If the iPhone5 were to be blocked, it would be a huge financial hit for them and would deeply affect their share price. The fact that Apple does not pay dividends on their shares means that their share price is somewhat more volatile than shares in other companies (who do pay dividends).

By contrast, Samsung's product lineup is massive, and the Galaxy line (S, S2, Tabs) only represent a small part. If they are blocked, it would still be a financial hit, but not as massive as Apple's would be.

Don't buy their games.

They come out with the most amazing game in the world, but if they insist on doing this, they won't be seeing any of my money.

Seriously, they wonder why people pirate their games. Yes, there are people wanting it for free, but there is a growing number of people who pirate it just to get away from the DRM.

It seems like the Hoverbike seems to be a lame attempt to cash in on the success of the Martin Jetpack.

To me, the Hoverbike looks like a deathtrap: the pilot is sitting above the lift propellers and with a centre of gravity higher than the centre of lift and no apparent method for lateral stabilization it will tip over the moment the pilot leans to far to one side. In their FAQ, they attempt to brush off the stability issue by talking about fixed-wing aircraft: aircraft that don't hover and that have a large tailplane for lateral stability. Also, saying that the aircraft is safer because the pilot can leap off and use their own parachute just seems wrong to me.

So, what they're saying is that the numbers didn't appear random enough to them. Maybe it selected a few too many undesirables for their liking. Sometimes random numbers can appear not to be random. That's the problem with randomness, you can never be sure.

Instead they are saying that:
"A new selection process will be conducted based on the original entries for the 2012 program."

I'm willing to bet that new selection process certainly won't be random.

Yes, there is a lottery.

But in order to enter, you have to apply and meet certain qualifying criteria.

Even if you win a lottery place, you don't automatically get a visa.

Instead you win an invitation to apply for a visa. Even then you can get turned down.
I'm fairly sure, but if you get turned down the lottery win just disappears: it doesn't mean that someone else then gets a chance.

This was a BlackOp. Why else were they using SEAL Team 6 (a team that supposedly didn't exist) and modified Blackhawks (that also supposedly didn't exist) unless this was a capture and go? A regular SEAL team and regular Blackhawks would have worked for a kill mission.

They left plenty of people alive in the compound, surely if this was a kill mission they'd all be dead so that no-one could point the finger back to the US. Plausible deniability.

If this was a kill mission, why would they have Chinooks? All the team, plus Bin Laden's corpse managed to fit in a single modified Blackhawk. Chinooks would have been unnecessary and even extremely risky given the small size of the LZ.

I'm willing to bet that the original plan was to capture everyone in the compound, including Bin Laden. I suspect that killing Bin Laden was the last thing they wanted to do. Yes, the US and most of the world has celebrated. But now they have effectively martyred Bin Laden and plenty of Muslim fundamentalists are now planning a retaliation. If this had been a covert capture, Bin Laden wouldn't have been martyred, they would have senior al-Quaeda captives to interrogate and there would be no rallying point for fundamentalists to retaliate.

Yes, I agree it would have been a three ring circus if Bin Laden had been publicly captured. The public would have demanded his execution, and he would have been martyred anyway. However, if he had been covertly captured he would just have disappeared into a CIA holding facility, and the world would know nothing. At some point, when it is most convenient for the Administration, his capture could have then been made public.

This mission was never a public mission. It was a BlackOp. They just fcuked it up.

I wonder if the world would have heard of this event if that helicopter hadn't have crashed. When that helicopter crashed and left a section of somewhat identifiable wreckage, the US lost capability for plausible denial. They had to tell the world.

I also have to wonder if, given the number of helicopters (two modified Black Hawks and two Chinooks), the original mission was just a capture mission. With this kind of carrying capacity, they could have removed everyone in the compound that wasn't killed in the initial raid. They would have landed the SEAL team first with the stealth Black Hawks, pulled out the Black Hawks and then followed that up a while later with a Chinook or two to pull out captives and the SEAL team. With no-one alive in the compound, the US would have had some degree of plausible deniability. On top of that, they'd have a large number of presumably senior al-Quaeda members to interrogate.

Instead, the crashed helicopter would have taken out a large chunk of the LZ (leaving no landing space for a Chinook), it would have taken up crew to dispose of the wreckage and tend to any wounded from the crash. Combine this with an already limited timeframe and being stuck with only one aircraft to remove the SEAL team and Bin Laden, and this may have suddenly become a kill mission.

e911 requires mobile phones to be capable of identifying their location. No-one is suing the government about that.

Telecommunication companies have been about to identify individual phones (through IMEI) and track their movements through cell tower triangulation. No-one is suing them about that.

Yet Google make a phone when location services have to be activated by the user, and they get sued. The key difference between them an Apple is that activation of the location services. It seems Apple users don't get a choice. I suspect these two ladies a) haven't owned Android phones very long (they're just in it to make some money off Google); and b) have some kind of distant tie to Apple (extremely convenient that this happens right after Apple's Location Services scandal).

I'm willing to bet that, as this is an opt-in service, this lawsuit won't go far.

So they're rolling out a *new* two factor authentication system? That implies that there was an old one.... Was it RSA? Could the two events be linked?