The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose. Publish new outrageous terms of service and then wait for the internet to explode. Wait a few hours more and then come on with a ready appology. A lot of people have enough invested in a particular site that they won't leave right away, and with an appropriate "apology" are molified. And a lot of exposure is thus gained. But given that other competitors are ready to swoop in, the other part of me dismisses it.

YOu try to solve mazes by putting blocks in the righ place to let the ball roll down. My nephew has played that game since he was 3.

Actually patent infringment include use. Patent holders can choose to sue users as well. Its true that users are not often sued, but in situations where the patented invention is used privately without distribution, the user can be sued.

He said Asia/canada not EU. It is true that taxes are higher than in the US. But the overal cost is lower. Before coming back to Academia, I was part of a startup. With the health care support we have in Canada, as well as other benefits, the lower loaded cost of an employee about makes up for the taxes. He also said undertainty. A higher tax rate isn't what kills it, as Warren Buffet has pointed out time and again. Its the endless bickering and inability to settle on a solution that kills it. If the GOP in the house is willing to meet Obama part way, then the situation will improve.

While I understand the black on brown racisim exists, why would there be any black on brown racist tweets about Obama being re-elected? He isn't Latino. They were looking for racist comments about Obama. Just curious.

Did you miss the part about this being in Canada? We don't have primaries, and the next federal election is several years off.

Want to feel old? Read the Beloit Collge Mindset List. Most of the incomming freshman for the class of 2016 were born in 1994. The last episode of MacGyver was originally broadcast in 1992. Not sure how long reruns went (or if there are still some on one of the cable channels), but it is a safe bet that most of them have never seen an episode of MacGyver. Gems on the list: never have seen an airplane ticket, a significant percentage of them will enter college already displaying some hearing loss, theTwilight Zone involves vampires, not Rod Serling.

I have a friend who has an iPod instead of an iPhone. She is almost always in range of free wifi, and uses two apps that provide free phone (including dial in) and free texting. Cheaper than an iPhone and lighter too.

Citation is fair use or equivalent in every jurisdiction. No way you are going to get that one through.

I found the article incredibly repetative and wishy washy and I think the author needs to go back to critical thinking class. It seems boil down to anybody who wants NC,ND is mistaken and doesn't understand creative commons. Other than pointing out the ambiguities on NC, it really doesn't justify the point of view other than "I'm right, you are wrong" with vague references to "outdated business models". More importantly, the author of the articl never attempts to address the uses cases intended by these clauses. One use case is that an owner of copyright wants to make it available to others, but does not want it modified (ND). If I put a photo up of my nephew and I want my family and friends (and family friends) to be able to share it amonst themselves, including with friends I don't know, CC makes a lot of sense. ND means that you don't get to use my nephews photo in your latest LOLimage and NC means some company doesn't get to use it in the ad campaign. And if you follow some of the groups on flickr, you find that photos are being routinely appriated for advertising use.

In the end, if the ND and NC clauses are struck from CCv4.0, people like me will simply stay with CCv3.0, or fork a new CC2v4.0

Yet the difficult tests and demonstrated ability to handle an aircraft safely doesn't stop one from cell phones and texting while flying: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/14/plane-crash-caused-by-cellphone-report

Myth #7 - The google authenticator app does not require your phone number and SMS messages.

Fact - You cannot set up the authenticator app unless you ahve given your phone number to Google and first authenticated using SMS

My cell phone number is known only to 10 of my friends and 2 companies (one of which is the provider). I have no intention of giving it to Google. Also, I only use gmail for personal non-financial/business mail. I have an email account that is protected by stronger privacy laws than exist in the US for my regular business.

I have a close friend who is a retired reporter and does not own a cell phone. But she does own a 4th Gen iPod Touch. Surely she should be able to use google authenticator? The short answer is no she can't.

The main difference is that you had better be right if you arrest someone. The police enjoy limited immunity when making an arrest. You have no such protection.

Whoosh!!!