Time and Life magazines used to have to publish Canadian versions of their magazines for the Canadian market, with Canadian content because these protectionist measures most certainly DID have such limitations placed upon them.

Google and Netflix just need to pay off the right politicians and all of this will go away.

I've got an iphone 5s. I do not have a case for it, and I carry it around, unprotected, in my left front pocket. However, I also tend to wear baggy clothes that are getting baggier by the day as I continue to lose weight. Anyway - that phone looks like it is brand new, except for a small nick in the metal case on one side where I accidentally dropped the phone from quite a height onto a hard surface. No scratches on the glass, no bends in the case. I have no desire for an iPhone 6 Plus - those things are ridiculously long. But I'm just saying - as a smartphone user, this phone fits in my pocket, unnoticed most of the time. There's no need to wrap a bulky case around it. You'll be fine.

I think this is going to finally be the year of the Amiga desktop!

mind. blown.

The stupid thing shows up in my iTunes list, but it most certainly didn't take an ounce of my bandwidth. It's in iCloud, not downloaded to any of my devices... If I never hit play on it, it'll never send it to me. I'm mildly annoyed that I now have a U2 album in my otherwise pristine music collection, but I'll live.

The accident rate for 'distracted driving' is approximately equal to that for drunk driving. Therefore the state has an interest in curbing the bad habits that drivers get into. Here in Saskatchewan Canada, it is illegal to operate any electronic device while driving a motor vehicle. This includes fiddling around with the stereo in your car, fiddling with your GPS, etc. You cannot use a cell phone in any capacity - take a call, take a picture, text, or email, while the vehicle is in motion. If you need to do those things, pull over. Now, the penalties for failure to comply with the law are steep, but fair. Its a $285 fine for the first offense. The second offense, your vehicle is impounded for a week. This does not mean you can't drive - you can certainly rent a car during that period. I'm not 100% clear what happens on subsequent offenses - I imagine they'll increasingly treat you as they would an impaired driver, which you clearly are if you cannot follow a simple, very clear law.

Canadian here. I work 8:30 to 5:00 with an hour lunch. I'm on salary, and I while I am technically on call 24/7, I am quite sure to rarely ever work more than the 37.5 hours a week I'm paid for. I get 4 weeks paid holiday a year, and free health insurance. I have prescription, optical, and dental coverage through our group plan at work. Life here is pretty good. What I see on the news from the U.S. makes me shake my head some times. You guys just don't seem to get it.

I agree completely. Bill's podcast is funny. What kills me is that he botches up reading the ads so badly that they also become very entertaining. I remember one time he just stopped reading an ad halfway through and blasted the advertiser for selling a really terrible product. I think it was some kind of 'healthy' snacks or something. Needless to say, he lost that advertiser that day. Please nobody tell Bill that he could just record one 'good' take of an ad and just edit it in every week.

"Proven Liar" - citation please.

"Paid Shill" - citation please.

The graphs you two are arguing about are apples and oranges. One is a graph of temperature readings, the other is a graph of temperature anomalies. They also cover different time periods, and have different vertical scales. I should also point out that the anomalies graph quite visibly dips downward after the year 2000. Just saying. It cannot be argued that there isn't a 'pause' in the warming. It cannot be argued that temperature co-relates poorly with CO2 levels. What can be argued are the reasons why this is so.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.

Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )