great idea, but easier said than done though

Sure i agree the U.S. (and the "western" world) has not been very nice in the past and we've given a lot of people reasons to bomb us, but even if we could all of a sudden start being really great people, you would still not be able to stop every single crazy person from wanting to bomb a plane.

And regarding a non-bombable plane, unfortunately i think a non-bombable plane would also be a non-flyable plane. And if i remember correct the terrorists on 9/11 didn't have any bombs (or at least thats what i've been told)

I love this logic that a lot of you are using here, which is basically this: Apple is such a huge company why would they bother attacking such a small company unless that company is backed by someone else

This is pretty much the same logic that has been used time and time again by ultra-conservative patriot types when they try to justify why the United States invaded their tiny republic. "I'm bigger so i must be right, I heard they were backed by communists!"

Oh crap, i hope i don't get sued here, does anyone know if apple patented the analogy yet?

I didn't realize i was griping, but i'll address your points one at a time here:

Commercials yes i realize they make money from the commercials, why don't they just make their own torrents which include commercials? Personally i wouldn't mind a bit, it's not the commercial-freeness of the shows i see online that i like, it's that i can get an entire series all at once and not have to worry about missing an episode.

No TV/Radio/Internet without advertizing? I agree on the TV and the Radio, but i pay for my internet with cold hard cash, without advertising, there may be less content, but advertising has nothing to do with my internet connection, or are you saying that they subsidize the internet with advertising dollars that they make from cable?

Higher Prices yes, perhaps for some the prices will be higher, however if they were to offer many tiers of bandwidth then the prices might actually be lower (assuming that all programing and internet were through one connection) Here's an example. i use an average amount of bandwidth, and watch relatively few shows on cable, so adding the cable shows to my internet bandwidth would not really affect it much, for others however, they might not use the internet much and instead chose to spend countless hours watching some inane completely mindless utterly ridiculus cable programming (such as ESPN) for them, adding the cable would drastically increase their bandwidth and therefore they would have to pay more for it.

Other countries? first, i mentioned absolutely nothing about other countries, but what you say is probably true, and the reason for it is likely that the technology originated in this country therefore since it's been around awhile we now have an antiquated system whereas newly connected countries can put the highest quality systems in right from the begining. its the same reason why there are more cell phones vs landlines in Iraq than there are here. it costs money to change the systems, but at some point you have to do it if you are going to remain competitive.

Exactly!

I've been waiting for someone to say this. Sure, I've used torrents for other activities, but my primary one is watching TV shows because it's simply easier, and as far as i know this should be legal. I think the ISPs (in my case Time Warner) need to realize this and adjust their strategy accordingly. I've often wondered why it is that i really pay for cable TV when i can pretty much get the same stuff over the net. I think eventually all we will have is a network connection and all TV/Phone/Internet will flow over it.

I'm not so sure about that (that the parent was joking) Whatever happened to buyer beware? Do you believe every salesman that comes to your door? of course not.

The fact is, the internet is still the wild west, there are still people selling potions and tinctures that promise to fix every problem. The only solution is for everyone involved to get a little smarter. If you coddle the consumer and protect him from scam artists, they will never learn

Now i don't know the specifics of this case, but obviously if they were straight up lying about their service, then that should be punished. If however they were just giving the customer the information (correct information) which led them to believe that they were going to get something out of it, then i think they should be off the hook. If they win this case, it will set a precedent that might not be good. You will now be able to sue because you didn't comprehend properly what was being sold to you, and who's fault is that?

I think the author of this article has completely missed the point of stretching. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with increasing or decreasing your overall muscle strength. Additionally it has nothing to do with preventing injury or warming up either. In actuality stretching for humans is the same thing as frogs inflating their bellys. It is solely to attract the opposite sex.

Study after study has proven than men who stretch their forarms (also known as guns) in front of women have a greater likelyhood of mating. It's a known fact also that women who do yoga are more likely to excel in the reproductive arts.

A more interesting study would be the effect of biker shorts on your ability to determine potential danger (such as a speeding car) or how fanny packs have led to retardation and uneven hair growth (re. the mullet)