Sorry, just using her as an example of overexposure, guess I could have made that more clear. Couldn't think of annother example offhand because I haven't had my morning coffee.

Yeah, this got me too. I guess if I hum a few bars of the latest pop music I'm also engaging in piracy.

Also in the old days music was good. I'm not talking about the generational gap and how all the music today sucks, I'm just saying that most music today is assembly line corporate crap. It's designed to be catchy, it's designed to be universal, and in the end it's bland. Real musicians/songwriters still exist, but the record labels make more money of a one hit wonder band that they create compared to a band with actual talent and staying power. The problem is that a one hit wonder gets annoying after a few weeks of overexposure. Remember when Titanic was in theaters and EVERY radio station played 'My Heart will go on' sometimes at the same time? Made you want to shoot your radio and did not make you need to buy the album. So marketing had to change, and it has little to do with piracy.

April 1st already?

Sadly it's not just samsung phones. Their TV and blue ray firmware is hit or miss too. If you have a good firmware version that does what you want it to then you keep it and only upgrade when forced.

Most phones are easily rooted and there are all sorts of forums where you can find the proper android install to use. When it comes time to flash your device you need to be extra careful and find as much information as possible, but it is doable. Just don't be the first person to try something or you might end up with a paperweight.

This actually makes sense. I have a couple t-mobile phones and they are far from stock firmware, as such I expect them to lag behind android releases so the custom crapware can be upgraded to work properly. When I get fed up enough I'll flash my phones and update, but it hasn't come to that yet. One of my biggest complaints with custom firmware is removal of features, haven't noticed any issues on my current phones, but on my razor they took away the dynamic backlight. I guess if something is to complicated or potentially troublesome for the tech support lines they just remove it.

Considering the limited ordinance and limited cockpit visibility the F-117 is neither a fighter nor a bomber it is an assassination aircraft. It can sneak in and take out a single air or ground target then it sneaks out again. What it lacks in versatility it makes up for in ability.

Ok he's a scumbag for trying to build a water pipeline and sell water. So, if there is no pipline and there is a drought the city can use water rationing and raise rates, but at least they won't be buying water from the evil man. Yup makes perfect sense to me.

Agreed, but without cameras on the cops you will never get both sides of the story. It makes sense that they should have cameras and everyone should be able to record them as well. At least in a free society.

Well, if you apply a little logic that defense seems a lot more probable than 'I was minding my own business doing nothing wrong and the officer started clubbing me.' If there are officers who beat people for no reason then they need to be sent to jail, if there are officers who use excessive force when it isn't needed then they need to be retrained or fired, and when an officer is in a situation which requires force and he uses the proper amount of force he should be commended. We can't make a judgment without seeing the full story and something captured on a cell phone camera won't cut it unless it caught the entire incident.

I kinda understand where the officer was coming from. There were some people loitering outside a gun buyback and buying guns. This in itself is not illegal, but if the owners of the property object then the loiterers can be asked to leave, or they can call the police and ask the police to make them leave. All normal. When the officer gets their CCLs that's pretty normal too, people loitering where they don't belong buying guns seems like probable cause. The problem is that the officer treated them like criminals instead of like innocent bystanders conducting a harmless transaction where they are not wanted. There was no cause for the officer to get upset with the questions being asked. The problem here comes from the police officers assumption that he is the law rather than the enforcer of laws, and sadly that is pretty common in these incidents. Once he had determined that the people there were within their legal rights he should have asked them not to loiter around there and wished them a happy holidays.

I work with an ex police officer and he's pretty set against 'civilians' recording police, in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context. This makes sense because a clip showing police brutality could be part of a longer incident where the suspect resisted arrest and tried to hurt the officer. I understand that in the heat of the moment a person who feels their life is in jeopardy may use force which seems excessive out of context. That being said, the same officer buddy is in favor of red light cameras, the nanny state, and airport scanners that see through your clothes. You can't have it both ways in a free and just society. You can't give the police the ability to watch everyone while denying the public the ability to watch the police. I think a better solution, that nobody in law enforcement would like, would be to put cameras on police officers and also allow the public to photograph them. That way in a court of law you have evidence that can provide context to any side videos in play. If the police officer is innocent he has nothing to fear from the surveillance, that's the line they have been feeding the public in general so it's fitting for it to fly back in their faces.

Then why does the bill of rights outline the rights of individuals? Oh yeah, it doesn't. I specifically outlines the powers and rights of the federal government. Sadly most individuals and the federal government have forgotten that the government works for us at our express consent. I think it's time to remind the politicians in Washington just what WE HIRED THEM to do.

From that writeup this version of net neutrality looks very reasonable, although without seeing the source text there is no way of knowing what loopholes exist. My question is where does the government regulation of content come into play? Will the government stifle freedom of the press/freedom of speech on the internet? Wikileaks is a prime example, there are a lot of politicians on both sides of the isle that would like to see the site nuked from orbit permanently, but it is also a prime example of freedom of the press.