So if I'm commenting on a movie, and I talk about the motivations of the character, it is infringement to show a clip of that character doing something? I'm talking about the actions of the character, not the angle and lighting at which they were filmed doing it.

By your logic, video would never be subject to fair use except when critiquing the cinematography. That is clearly not true.

In my non-professional understanding, the only way to get a flute up to $50k is to go for solid gold, compared to the solid silver of a $25k flute.

Solid gold is a much softer timbre. But no, I doubt anyone who was not listening to a head-to-head comparison would know the difference. Then again, I doubt 99% of the audience at any classical music concert would notice if one instrument was slightly out of tune, or if a few notes were played wrong here and there. That doesn't make being sloppy acceptable to the musicians, any more so than it should for any other (semi-)professional.

You are wrong with regard to item 2), as my statement indicates that, regardless of which case he chose, he was supporting a representative that supported the embargo. I think you didn't fully read my post as I said exactly what you think I got wrong.

With regard to item 1), abstention is support. The unnamed fourth option (to candidate A, B, or none) is to run for election yourself, and vote for yourself, while advocating a different policy. That's the option where you clearly distanced yourself from the status quo.

And, sadly, that's world we live in.

So turn the monitor on its side, then fine them. "But it's horizontal, not vertical" sounds like the type of bogus technical argument any competent judge would throw out.

So when I get LTE on T-Mobile, as I am at this moment, it's magic, since the phone doesn't support any T-Mobile LTE band?

The facts speak against you. Sorry.

Speaking for U.S. law, you understand copyright wrong. The fair use doctrine allows for use of copyrighted works for the purpose of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research".

Part of the criteria for determining if use of a copyrighted work is fair use includes the "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", so, for example, if I were to post a Vine video of a goal, along with commentary like "Manchester United played a great game today, with three goals including this exciting one by Bob Smith", then I am (your pick) commenting, critiquing, or reporting on the entire hour and a half game, while posting a five second clip of that game. In the U.S., that is clearly fair use unless the other side's lawyers have more money than you do.

I realize this story is about England, but I'm relatively certain that every Slashdot commenter including the parent is discussing this in terms of U.S. law, so I did as well.

You'd never get that double blind, because a bad flutist wouldn't have the depth of skill to create the detailed intonations possible with the good flute, and the professional flutist would be able to produce almost as good of sound from the cheap flute (but have to work much, much harder to do so).

My wife replaced her ~$2000 high school and college flute with a ~$25k one a few years after college, when we were both well enough off from our day jobs and she became active in the civic orchestra. She received a degree in flute performance with that $2k flute, but as she put it, a lot of her time was spent "fighting the instrument" to make things sound right; with the professional flute she could spend more time on other things like listening to the rest of the orchestra or reading ahead to be a better sightreader.

Not if it costs 1000x more to create the technology than it does to counter it. Nor if the money to build it was borrowed in part from that potential enemy.

You were presented with a candidate slate containing Candidate A and Candidate B. You chose to vote for Candidate A, or Candidate B, or not to vote.

In any of the three cases, you were electing a representative that voted on the embargo for you.

Not that I think one is wrong against Russia right now..

So..in other words, they advertised 1080p and are delivering 1080i, but presumably at a 1080p frame rate instead of the usual, faster 1080i rate.

I think you're trying to argue that it's still 1080, and it is, but it's still not what they advertised. No, this guy shouldn't be suing them. The FTC should be fining them for false advertising.

Also, I had no problems using the phone's data in other parts of Asia, nor did colleagues on T-Mobile (who had T-Mobile phones). They just didn't get service in Korea.

You are incorrect. I am posting from a "Verizon" iPhone which I bought, unlocked , from an Apple store, then popped in a T-Mobile SIM. It works fine.* The Verizon iPhone has all CDMA and GSM frequencies for all three networks (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon).

I bought the Verizon version so that I could use it in Korea. T-Mobile provides free data there but you have to have a CDMA-capable phone. Also, I was new to T-Mobile and if their coverage sucked I liked the ability to move to either AT&T or Verizon.

* T-Mobile recognizes it as an "unknown smart phone" since it doesn't broadcast the correct model number. I get full LTE speed data, voice, text, with graceful downgrades to 4G, 3G, and E, but I can't use iPhone specific features like visual voice mail.

They simply disable CDMA in the AT&T/T-Mobile version. The Verizon version has both CDMA and GSM and frequencies for all three carriers.

- posted from a "Verizon" iPhone I bought new contract-free and only ever used with a T-Mobile SIM .

The Sprint version is significantly different.

If you use a 1 kHz ADC to measure a 1.1 kHz signal, what do you measure at 900 Hz?