Exactly my thoughts. The whole thing is bat-shit crazy-scary. The rationalization put forward by these people is unbelievable.

"The banks already know more about what we do in our daily life--they know what we eat, where we go, what we purchase--our deepest secrets," he says. "We're not talking about anything different here--just a system that's good for all of us."

Ad 1) Not anything different. Yeah, equally bad.

Ad 2) No, they do not. At least not in my country, Germany. Data transmitted to the bank for payment processing is only the amount due and the recipient. The bank can see that I was shopping in store X, but not what I bought. And they cannot use this information in any way that is not related to complete the transaction. They cannot sell the information, not even in aggregated and anonymized form.

And this is a very good thing. I feel sorry for anyone living in a place with lesser protection.

No.

Hey grandpa ;-)

Well yeah, but here is the typical technical slashdot crowd. So we have to over-think, over-complicate and find the most contrived possible way to mis-interpret the statement. We are also very good at nit-picking ;-)

What about audio?
I tolerate dropped video frames, but if the audio stutters, I will stop watching very quickly. Often seen with screencasts or demonstration videos: Buzzing or humming because of low quality or built-in micro or loud fans. I cannot stand that, but do not mind if the video is a bit blurry.
 

Did you ever see a press release or a press map? The ones I have seen do not contain such permission notes, the permission to use the material is implicit.

"They've regularly sent the site info, free clips, previews and information about the show."

Same thing.

The owner can very much make the case that he got permission to show the info. To him, he can assume his marketing department contact rightfully represents the company and has proper authority. More so as together with PR, marketing is the department in charge of handling press et al. Note: It is not his obligation to inform himself about Discovery's organigram, whether they have a PR department and whether marketing had to coordinate with PR or similar. Discovery's internal arrangements are not his concerns.

When a clerk in a shop sells you gooods or gives you a sample, you do not have to check with management first if he has the authority to do so. You can rightfully assume he has.

Aside: For legal to claim him embedding Youtube clips from Discovery's channel is copyright infringement shows that they do not have the proper technical competence and that did not consult with technical staff first. Every department its own island, no contact wanted.

"If this bus is a tenth of what a subway costs, then that shows that you get what you pay for."

It is incredibly expensive and complicated to drill undergrouds in populated areas.

In my town, there is a new subway line being build. It is just 4km long. They started in 2004 and looks like they may be operational in 2012. 60% of buildings along the route had some kind of damage due to the ground yielding more than predicted. Current cost estimates are 1.1 Billion Euros.

And think of the children!!1

Completely different topic. The OP was talking about "Seems like any accident could leave debris in the tracks", i.e. how debris from some accident could somehow be a problem. Which it is not.

He was replying to "It is determining how portable device will be used by the mainstream". And he is right, IMHO.

Given this, ehm, quite short list of U.S. agencies, I guess I would call the police to get patched through to their office to verify their identity in really all cases.

I think you are quite right on that - very orthodox and conservative.

Janet Jackson's nipple slip would have been just an amusing side-note in Europe. Gay couples can form a civil union that is legally on equal terms with a traditional marriage. The German Foreign Minister is openly gay and it was never any problem politically. No one cares how religious Chancellor Merkel is, if and how much she goes to mess. You need to at least faint religiousness to get elected President in the US, it seams.

All in all, religion plays a very small role in politics and daily lives. There are hardly any religious nut jobs, and they have no influence or media presence.

I went to a high school in Germany that was funded and run by the catholic church. But for a school (and their diploma) to be officially recognised, the curriculum has to be accepted by a expert board in the ministry of education.

So there was no teaching or mentioning of Creationism and the likes in biology. And even in religion classes, this was not a topic at all. No teacher and no parent would even entertain that notion. I was born in Poland and my parents are deeply religious and they would not think about that. The push to creationism in the US leaves me astonished and in disbelieve. It is mental.

Aside: Although the catholic religion classes were mostly just that, you were not grated on your faith or being able to cite the bible at all. It was about interpretation, comparison of the books of the new testament etc. We even had a fairly objective study about other religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism), their history, their believes and customs. And even as it is a catholic school, we had about 40% evangelical christians, who had their own religion classes, and a few muslims, whose parents choose the school for its education quality and good standing.

You mean the self-balancing equations that require a homo oeconomicus? That is a fantasy world long overcome. Or to stay in that world view: Human behaviour itself is a system inherit deviation.