This would be the killer box if XMBC was rolled in. They could even team with the Boxee crew. I'd put in my preorder today.

I read a theory yesterday that under the $9 grouped pricing scheme the mail-orderers and the streamers got counted together for their streaming costs. This move will likely split people into streamers or mailers. That shrinks the pool of potential streamers which lowers their costs.

As I understand it, at least some of their contracts with the content industry force Netflix to pay some amount multiplied by the number of potential streamers. They are trying to save money here.

I'm just repeating a rumor though - so.... you know....

I can't find data for non-fatal accidents, but the NHTSA shows a perfect decline in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled from 1994 to 2009. There was a bump up in total number of fatal crashes in the early 2000s (about the time when well phones were becoming ubiquitous), but the increase in miles driven and number of drivers still show it to be a decrease in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

I understand this data is for traffic fatalities (not all accidents) so factors such as improved vehicle safety features are probably a large part of the trend. I think it's telling though that if cell phones are a bad factor in driving, they aren't bad enough to cause an increase in traffic fatalities.

Huh? The AC was "ignoring the rights of those being photographed"? The AC was focusing on the installation issue for two reasons: 1) that is what the artist is being charged with and 2) he was responding directly to MichaelSmith. If the AC had mentioned the privacy concern he too would have been missing the point of the discussion.

Also, I didn't address your second point because it was too big of a straw man. Since you insist though... no one is arguing that you have legal immunity while using a public computer. That's just so far from a reasonable point that it doesn't even merit a response. If the artist had done something clearly illegal (child porn for instance) there would be no question that he had broken a law. He didn't do anything CLEARLY illegal though. Restating the AC's original point: if you have admin rights to someone else's computer and you install (benign) software on it then you are an asshole, not a criminal.

Let me summarize for you:

• MichaelSmith: the artist didn't have permission to install software on the Apple computers
• AC retorts: the artist had implied permission, therefore he's not in violation of section 1030 of USC 18
• AAWood: 1) what about PRIVACY? and 2) are you arguing that anyone can film child porn with Apple computers?
• Me: Donnie you're out of your element!

The guy isn't in trouble for taking pictures. He is in trouble for installing software on someone else's machine. The AC was saying that Apple should have locked their computers down if they didn't want people installing software. The discussion of permission for photos misses the point of the discussion.

Really? The US should put warnings on planes bound for Amsterdam then.

In that vein, FoldIt is a game where the goal is to make proteins that match target sites. Promising results get tested in labs. Same gist as what you suggest, but you get humans to play tetris instead of a computer trying random proteins.

I recently switched providers too. I hate the idea of contracts that come with "free phones". I went with cricket and have been very surprised/happy with their service. $55/month for unlimited voice/text/data ($60/month after taxes). No contract and the service has been very reliable. Not as good as Verizon was but I was paying well more with Verizon for limited talk/text and no data.

If you don't like the way that the big players treat you then put your money where your mouth is and give some of the up and comers a shot.

It sounds to me like you are using Israel as an example of why we should use the scanners. I've read in various news outlets that Isreal doesn't use the "naked scanners" because they don't work because they are ineffective and invasive. I've been through the Tel Aviv airport three times this year (and twice in through land crossings); I can say without a moment's hesitation that they are far less physically invasive than our TSA. No doubt Israeli security is very good... they absolutely do not fuck around with security, and they don't use the standard TSA tactics. That should tell you something.

I think you're right though - we should emulate Israel as they are far better at security than us. Step one: get rid of the kabuki dance and employ measures that are actually effective.

Bonus quote: "I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines (they are useless). I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747, that is why we have not put body scans our airport." - Rafi Sela, Israeli security expert who designed the security in Israel’s largest airport.

He is talking about the ridiculous "sunken cube" shape of the boxee box.

What if I vote for you?

Bah. Forgot the link

Although this thing idea is neat, there is an Israeli company that is currently selling RF tech to do the same thing. It comes in a package the size of a suitcase, and can be deployed without having to put transmitters/receivers all over the place. Check it out.

I actually applied to work for that company but wasn't smart enough. Blasted Israelis and their blasted smarter-than-me-ness.

I look for Google Wave to fill that void within 12 months.

The OP is referring to the suspicionless internal DHS (border control) check points.
    * http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1804/Davidson/Davidson.html
    * http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b92_1231335983

I can't find anything official from the DHS website, but the claim seems to be that DHS can legally set up spots away from the border and act as if they are at the border for purposes of questioning and searches.