Nobody's saying that the teachers can't write their own songs for the kids to sing for free. But if they (the teachers / daycare centres) want to use someone else's songs as part of their profession then they're being told to pay. Just like they pay for books, videos, class trips, etc.

I totally get the "oh my god this is awful telling those poor little kiddies that they must pay to sing" reaction. But that isn't what's happening. What's happening is that professional people (teachers) and for-profit businesses (daycare centres) are being told that they can't use someone else's professional work for free.

Let me play devil's advocate:

Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?

That is some people's view. I don't agree.

People should be able to choose the vehicle they want to keep their family safe.

While it is unavoidable that the larger, more powerful SUVs will be too expensive for some people, what I condemn is any move by the _state_ to price people out of the SUV market based on relatively trivial matters such as CO2 emissions.

Rich people will still be able to buy, tax and insure their SUVs, while poorer people will be more likely to be limited to smaller, weaker cars that will come off worse in a crash.

The safety issue really concerns me. I don't want people being forced by legislation to buy smaller, weaker cars, for city driving, because most people can only afford one car so they'll also be taking those same small, weak cars out on fast roads.

I'm a news photographer and I often attend accident scenes. As a rule, whenever there is an SUV involved, the occupants of the SUV survive and the occupants of the car _all_ die.

Renault Megane vs Range Rover. Both people in the Megane killed. Minor injuries in the Range Rover.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/FatalcollisiononB9006CantraywoodtoCroyro_A156/FatalcollisionB9006CantraywoodtoCroyroad2.jpg

Vauxhall Corsa vs Mitsubishi Shogun. Both people in the Corsa killed. Injuries in the Shogun.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/Newspaperphotosfromthelastfewmonths_CD67/A9Dalwhinniefatalcollision5of8.jpg

Vauxhall Astra vs Mitsubishi Shogun. All three people in the Astra killed. Minor injuries in the Shogun.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/818q3025.jpg

Won't the DDoSers be flooding the IP?

I'm going to go against the general concensus and say that I wasn't at all impressed. The idea itself is cool, and has a huge amount of potential, but the execution was poor. The choice of lens is too wide (don't use wide angle when you're going to be panning / tilting), the camera has part of the plane in shot (again due to the lens being too wide), and apparently there was nothing done to avoid rain drops on the lens (would have been easier to avoid with a less-wide lens). Honestly, nearly everything that _could_ be done wrong, _was_ done wrong, and it was all because they didn't think enough about lens choice. The only bit they did right was not crashing the plane.

Every random / abusive / tyrannical decision by Apple reminds me why I sold my iPhone and swore I would never buy another Apple product. Every time I lean closer to buying an iPad, Apple does something horrible and my credit card breathes a sigh of relief. Thank you Apple.

Love Java. Love Eclipse. Sounds like my IDE of choice is going to get a lot stronger.

Most pornography is legal.

The blocking of material should be decided on a legal / illegal basis. Blocking a subset of legal material will, you would hope, violate some trade regulation. The law-abiding producers of legal pornography have as much right to do business, without government interference, as the charity shop selling home-made cakes.

"our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities ... inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments"

Shut up. You're a bank. Just move people's money around for them and don't try to have an opinion.

Nothing says success like jettisoning every non-essential part of your portfolio and abandoning your greatest assets -- staff -- a week before Christmas.

It should be noted that the "maybe use a drone or something" quote is from a _former_ adviser to the Canadian prime minister, so someone whose role in politics is minimal and historical. Also note that the article you linked to was from the 1st of December, before Assange was taken in to custody.

"Two of the cases were found in default as the defendants had failed to respond, but not on the merits of ACS:Law's case."

So a lesson for us all there. If some random law firm threatens to sue you for something you haven't done, apparently you MUST respond or you're guilty.

The riot is the rhyme of the unheard?

I should sue the maker of Leisure Suit Larry.