Why not give the user a choice? Saves battery unless you click on it. Problem Solved!

You forget that a phone "Dying" is subjective. My iPhone 3g still works. But my god after 12 months its battery lasted MAYBE 4 hours if you ever used the device. 24 months later? 36 months later? Old nokias can last 10 years+ AND you can replace the battery so it still holds a charge. Good luck using your iPhones 5 years after heavy use. And that has nothing to do with wether it will "work" (because it still should, but without significant battery life).

Does grammar in quotations apply outside quotations? I failed english at school so I can't answer this one. I do know that if it were programming we'd be in trouble for unterminated constants in the replace string we were writing. Is a correction a replace string for the above post? I know of a friend once who enabled automatic replace in his IRC history when appropriate strings were said after the fact. So someone could write: "I just popped hard" and then go "oh crap!" "s/popped/pooped" and in his IRC history it would change "popped" to "pooped" There was much lulz when I realised you could change what *anyone* wrote with this. Changing his IRC history to show people (including himself) saying all kinds of retarded things etc.

they DID ask IT.

IT said: its too hard.

Sorry, but Windows isn't the lowest quality product.

• From a non-technical users perspective, *nix was the lowest quality product (no ease of use)
• Windows was the cheapest product (no special hardware)
• MacOS was expensive (hardware lockin)
• And anything else was too small.

All the above basically has changed. But so has windows, it's actually pretty good now (only 20 years to get there...), but various flavours of *nix have caught up in usability (for your average pleb here) but MacOs still has the hardware lockin (arguably though, completely artificial hardware lockin...)

Huh? You are on drugs clearly.

They did not say: "We don't want heavy handed regulation so we will terminate them" they said:
"The Green Party has always opposed, and continues to oppose, termination (account suspension) as a remedy for infringing file sharing."

The end.

PS. the government doesnt "regulate" to stop people getting their internet terminated. If anything ISPs don't want to EVER cancel peoples internet. They only have to regulate so that people DO get internet terminated.

Remember, "corporate culture" has nothing to do with the regulation (other than wanting it to pass). Because they aren't cancelling anyones internet at the moment. Corporate culture WANTS them to cancel internet. Thus they WANT regulation. No regulation (in this instance) = no cancelling of the internet.

Welcome to Australia! (That is exactly our government right now, 3 people have the balance of power.) It is actually hilarious (and god awfully painful) to hear people talking about "backflipping" and "reversing election promises", when they made these promises under the auspices of "Give us government, we will/will not do X" What happens? They DON'T get elected. So they figure out a way to convince a couple others to actually elect them. As far as I am concerned, governments that are REQUIRED to form a coalition government (after the election occurs, not before) are basically exempt from all promises, because they can't keep their promises, as the voting public didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

Office XP? O RITE !! office 2002 ...

pervert.

It is completely analogous.

Back before The War, it was legal to own slaves. The law said you could, and if a slave ran away the police would drive them back to your house (given they could prove that the slave was the slave in question).
The analogy isn't that you can have slaves NOW, it is that things can change. That what is considered "Right" now, and that what is considered "Good" by the law changes. (don't forget it was also considered "good" by (at least some) popular perception, I mean they fought a WAR over this issue among others ofcourse).

Sure, slaves are odd, but the argument that: "The law says its good, and I agree" doesn't necesarily make it right. Because the law has considered "good" and "right" some odd things (according to us) in the past.

They shouldn't be *obligated*, but they can go to hell if they try to sue someone for playing with something they own.

you think $50 dollars is bad?

try paying $90+
($110 for xbox RRP).

Oh, sure its AUD, but we aren't 60 us cents to our dollar anymore, we are in fact 1.05 us buys 1 AUD as of yesterday.

*Spit*

You are really not thinking very much are you.
If you can't convince someone to pay you for something you are doing, get this, you don't deserve to get paid. I know its hard to imagine, but you don't get paid for it, period.
If you write music, and can't convince someone to pay you for it, don't give it away for free. Keep it! your heirs can try to sell it later, and get paid for it then!

If you build a boat, and can't convince someone to buy it from you. So instead you give it away. Your heirs don't get paid for it ever.. Why should they when you can't sell your music when you are alive?

When I start selling your book, I am not selling YOUR book. I am selling something that LOOKS like your book.

Your example of the house is a false example.

The closest would be, if you die your heirs inherit your house.
Your heirs can't stop someone copying your house. Copying your garden layout, copying your trees. That would be nuts.

But given time, education and funding they COULD perform the independent testing and verification.

No such thing can be said of religion.