Found many examples online. Basically a low-rpm motor turns an arm that pulls three wires attached to a foam head and wire arms draped in cheesecloth that has been soaked in detergent, suspended under a black light. Looks wild, slowly drifting up and down in the window.

Instead of two cars being written off, the bigger car just gets a touch up. Sounds like less liability to me.

Because sadly,the bigger vehicle is actually suffering LESS damage, because they're hitting smaller and more fragile cars...

As TFA states, the "deathtrap" is due to the smaller cars being smashed to a pulp when they run into a gas-guzzling behemoth. People are buying big cars not because they need them or that they like guzzling fuel. And maybe not even necessarily because the bigger cars have more "oomph". But also because "driving a tank = I'm safer, especially from other tanks on the road".

Boo-urns, no iPad/iPod Touch version. Why?

Apple will fix the exploit when it comes out anyway. My point was that jailbreaking the latest minor patch isn't really ./-worthy news...

Meh, call me when it jailbreaks iOS 5 without needing tethering.

What's hilarious is demanding to the salesperson why they are selling a black-market and un-certified product. Blood drained from the face of the salesperson when I interrupted his speal with "so if this cheap one isn't certified (pointing at the HDMI logo on the package), why are you facilitating violation of trademark law?"

I told the sales rep at Best buy that, that there was no connector difference between 1.3 and 1.4, the difference was in the features supported by the devices. But he persisted to argue that the more expensive cable was "1.4 compatible" while the cheaper one wasn't. He even carried on when I began loudly stating how much his argument made no sense, and why.

Of course, this was the same twit who tried to convince me that gold-plating the connector makes OPTICAL cables better. ;)

Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".

That's debatable, and several courts have allowed things like location trackers without warrant, and the searching of cell phones and computers. There's a new bill in the works to explicitly require warrants for electronic surveillance.

Good question. It seems the bill forbids the company from collecting the data from the phone, but there's nothing stating that the phone can't keep on recording that data.