Addendum: T-Mobile will offer a lower price if you bring your own phone. The carriers that matter still don't though.

While it's true your monthly fee is why they subsidize cost, your monthly fee isn't going to go down based on what phone you buy or even if you bring your own. So because the monthly bill is fixed based on the service you want and not the phone you want, the cost of the phone to the customer is actually $49. You can argue that subsidized pricing is one reason behind paying so much for cell service, but it's not like they'd charge less even if they did charge full price for a phone.

I'm surprised they're not censoring your calls. It'd just be another way for them to exercise their freedom of speech.

The fact that you think it's alright for the people who would be exposed to decide what information can be released shows you don't understand the purpose of whistleblowing and why we need to allow it. I understand the government needs to keep secrets, but as we've already seen, they keep too many, and the fact that they know they can keep these secrets has allowed them the freedom to make decisions that go against what the American people want. There's no longer any room for debate, after the recent leaks we know the US Goverment has been lying to us about things they shouldn't, things that would affect the decisions made by voters, things that affect peoples' opinions of our elected officials. The fact is if we could trust our government to do what's right without having to tell us about it, the leaks wouldn't have been an issue for the general public. Other countries' officials would still be upset, but if the government acted in the best interests of the people they represent, everyone wouldn't have been so angry when they found out. It's really very simple, power leads to corruption. More secrets means less oversight, less oversight means more power, more power means more corruption.

A ridiculous analogy. Think more along the lines of trying to buy a tobacco pipe after the clerk heard you say it's going to be used for pot, it's illegal for them to sell it to you based only on that. A mere statement of intent can actually determine the legality of purchasing something. Intent is actually a very important concept in the legal system, many things are legal until your intent changes.

Your quote suggests that in 1970 average production worker salary was $28,000 and that seems awful high for 1970 wages, while your year 2000 number suggests average worker salary of only about $24,000, which is below average pay. See how your statistics have been manipulated already? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that those numbers aren't hugely affected by those 300 of the largest public corporations. It's like stating that the average global income is $7,000 while a full third of the world makes about ten percent of that. The extremes throw the numbers off, quite a bit in fact. Beyond that, from what I've seen most smaller companies don't have anyone they call a CEO, but they have people who perform all the same duties, this is often the owner and they'll frequently take the name President. Those are just the two things that come to mind when you say that. I'm not saying CEOs aren't greatly overpayed, I'm saying statistics can be manipulated to make things appear a certain way and that's what it looks like happened with the one you reference. And citation not needed, Google will get you any of this information very easily, and I'm sure if you want you can find a website that presents things however you want so you can prove us all wrong!

I see what you're saying, but you're still comparing copyright infringement to conditions that caused death, so you can expect some people to not be able to take it seriously. You're also missing a key factor in that it's not a choice between protecting people and protecting a company, it's a choice between protecting one company or another. Youtube doesn't make all of their money on infringing content and won't go anywhere without it, I agree it's an issue that should somehow be dealt with but saying to one business they're responsible for protecting another wouldn't be fair in any sense of the word. They aren't stealing the content, they are trying to comply with regulations and they take down infringing content as soon as it's found. It's not the same as you polluting and not paying, it's the same as you not cleaning up after people who litter all over your lawn. That's really all we can hold them to unless our government wants to outright support one company (or even group of companies) over another. The government is there for a reason and we can let them regulate things to a degree, but this goes beyond their ability to regulate. Here's where your argument works against you: the only demonstrable damages caused by copyright infringement have been caused by the regulations around it, by the fines associated with it, and by the expenses weighed against our government and therefore our people chasing our own citizens. The music and movie industries have failed to show any actual damages, in fact I'd say when most industries have suffered greatly over the last decade and a half the entertainment industry has held on quite strong. To protect the people, what we need is not more regulation, it's less.

I think the only really important thing to take from this is that Youtube is not there to enforce your rights. Of course, the same logic would suggest that Youtube is not there to protect content owners either. The truth is if we tell Google to filter all the videos they put on Youtube, then we are forcing them to decide, putting the power in their hands. You're right that they can filter anything, but they haven't chosen to filter anything outside of pornography. If the courts force them to screen infringing content, then yes, they do need judges to decide what's infringing, because it's a legal issue not up to Google's employees. Not to mention the fact that low-wage employees aren't exactly motivated to be thorough or honest in screening beyond just keeping their job, and the lower the wages the more forgiving you have to be for mistakes. The article is surely blowing things up a bit, but you're going the other way.

Damn, beat me to it. As far as how this is news, you must have been absent from Slashdot for the steady decline it's taken. The new slogan is "News is for nerds, f**k you guys."

Actually... This article seems to suggest the Chinese aren't hacking to steal our secrets. I'd find it amusing if they were just repeatedly making silly half-hearted attempts at breaking into our systems just to throw us off the trail of the real problem: people who've lost faith in their country. Well, that and greed. Probably mostly greed. Still, not the TECHNO-warriors of China.... that does sound better.

I think this poll needs to be tossed in favor of one with a little more clarity. Depending on who you ask in the same household, the answer will vary between none and twenty, because as many folks have pointed out the number is entirely dependent on what you're considering a loudspeaker. There's one EBS speaker near my house, that's the first thing I thought of when I read the poll, then I realized it doesn't specify and the number shot over twenty just in my bedroom, between two computers, TV, surround sound, phones, headphones, etc... I mean, do each of my Wii controllers count for this? A quick mental count of what's set up in the house puts the number closer to forty. Wait, why the hell do I have so many speakers?

Isn't this like the third or forth time this has happened? I seem to recall both the FBI and TSA making the same mistake somewhat recently. At least within the last couple of years. I guess people can't learn from others mistakes after all...

The fat lady was going to sing, but the RIAA accused her of copyright infringement and the out of court agreement bars her from singing without paying them.

I thought they just sent it through the same tubes the internet uses? Aren't neutrinos almost as small as golf balls? They'd fit easy.