I think that's a catch 22. If you where the star of a show making $5000 per episode and found out that each episode was turning a profit of $3,000,000 then you'd probably want a higher salary since your effort is making someone else so much money. Just like with movie actor's salaries if an actor becomes more popular more people come to see their movies and the movies make progressively more money and of course the actor would want a higher salary.

As good as this seems on paper, along with the idea of being able to only subscribe to the channels you want I think the reality of it would suck. I believe that if the revenue model for television had always been a subscription per show or even channel basis then a lot of shows/channels would have never existed. If you look at what shows are popular now then I hope you LOVE reality TV and want to watch all 17 variations of Survivor and American Idol that would come to be. I hope you don't like sci-fi because there wouldn't be enough money in it to make any of those shows. The fact is I (and probably a lot of others) watch a LOT of TV we wouldn't pay specifically for.

Just an observation, in your post you mention "if the device is not subsidized by verizon, and is the user's personal property". Assuming that ownership of the device makes a difference, I think you could argue that he owns it either way. If I buy a phone that's worth $500 for $200 in exchange for a 2 year contract then there will be a penalty that will more than pay for the phone if I cancel. If that penalty is part of my agreement then I don't see how the phone wouldn't be considered "mine" since I've agreed to either honor my contract or reimburse them if I don't; assuming I do either of those that phone is mine.

And my WiFi AP does 600 megabits....

If that's true then the sale of those items should be better controlled. If I walk into a government subsidized bookstore and they let me buy 1000 copies of the same book and walk out the door then there is a problem.

I imagine the team(s) that responded to the security threat didn't know it was a drill. I think the idea was to create the situation using a real security hole but with the cooperation of an engineer that was playing the part of a "tricked" employee to allow the vulnerability to be exploited in a realistic way. I ASSUME that the team members responsible for the creation of the exploit program were not part of the team(s) that responded to the incident.

I love Star Trek, but this isn't Star Trek. Although we should prevent accidental contamination of another ecosystem, I don't think we should freak out if it happens. Natural cross-contamination (meteors, etc) stand a good chance of being the reason there is life here on Earth.

Maybe is was an R/C plane as others have suggested and possibly it had accidentally gotten out of range of the transmitter. I know technology has changed a great deal since I was in the hobby but it used to be that if your plane/buggy got out of range of your radio the servos would stay in whatever position they were in at last contact. Even at that time there were devices available that would put the servos in a pre-programmed position in that event. I assume this has probably been built into newer hardware but maybe not and certainly a failure is not out of the question.

Does it distinguish between true criminal intent and the desire to smash the display for being so nosy?

I think Groupon is GREAT, if you're a consumer. For businesses not so much, Groupons are expensive to offer, if I'm not mistaken the vendor pays 50% of the discount value to Groupon as a fee. So if you offer a Groupon that entiles you to $100 worth of stuff for $50, then Groupon gets $25 from the vendor for each sale. From the vendors point of view, you just got $100 worth of stuff for $25, pretty straightforward. I'm sick and tired of reading about businesses that lost money by offering a Groupons, if you did then you don't have a grasp of simple math. You simply CAN'T offer a Groupon where you lose money, if you can't meet your costs in my example for the $25 you will actually keep, then you can't make the offer.

Well, when speaking about haptic and textured feedback I think "devices" was the wrong word, I think he should have said something like "cat".

True, but the bottom line is you should think hard about who you trust to protect your privacy. You can put nude pictures up on facebook and set the permissions as strictly as you want, but if facebook has a security breach (it happens), then what are you going to do? The ONLY way to keep naked pictures of you off the internet with certainty is not to take them in the first place and by that I don't mean "don't post them on the internet". I mean do not bring those images into existence, if you take digital pictures (or paper ones) and the media they are on is stolen, then you lose control of them and you have no idea where they'll wind up. Basically anything that exists either as data or as a physical object can end up "public". People would be a lot better off if they thought of the internet as having no expectation of privacy.

He's not facing 105 years JUST for what he did, but for HOW MANY TIMES he did it.

Is this going to make my penis bigger?

It seems to me that if Lenovo goes through with this, they're going to get burned. I don't think many businesses would trust China not to peek into the data going through those Black Berrys and the devices will be dropped like hot potatoes. If Lenovo's strategy is about getting their hands on patents, then that may be an acceptable consequence to them.