Cool, thanks for the PR release wiredmikey

Anything that would allow a user to run a non-Apple-approved program, anything at all, even a DOS emulator, is against the rules.
Nice tautology there: "Anything that will let you do something not allowed is not allowed". How does one argue against that kind of thinking?

The Simon-Ehrlich wager is required reading for anyone making or reading about such claims.

Can I get a summary of the summary please

Lifespan is one area that immediately springs to mind. Granted, they're making advances in OLED lifespan but it's still well below SED's "indefinite" (i.e., comparable to lcd or crt) life.

I'd guess the number of consumers who would pay a 500%+ markup for a television with, arguably, marginally better iq than a plasma is vanishingly small.

All promises aren't equal. If I promise to drink at least 3 glasses of water a day, to exercise for at least 30 minutes every day, and also promise to not embezzle from my employer, keeping the first two but not the third may give me a respectable "promise keeping" percentage, but I would guess my employer would be much happier if I kept only the third and not the first two.

My precious 5 seconds of time reading the headline can never be recovered :~(

Freedom of speech does no good if it only protects the freedom of speech that is generally non-controversial. As to your example, I suggest you google "Piss Christ" and look up how many lynchings the artist endured (hint: exactly zero).

I personally didn't contribute any Muhammed drawings because I thought the whole thing was rather silly, but to say that only certain types of speech deserves protection (and that speech you disagree with, doesn't) kind of undermines the entire concept.

I'd amend your statement to:
This notwithstanding, if you say you agreed with the law, and thought it had broken it, and agreed with how the law was being applied in this case, well, then, obviously you did the right (moral) thing.

After all, I would guess that most people don't have an objection to jaywalking laws in general -- but if an out of control car were hurtling towards you and you ran across a street to avoid it, I would hope that most people would think that charging you with jaywalking would be asinine.

Unless I'm parsing it wildly incorrectly, I think he's saying the exact opposite of that.

No, it's like buying Windows Home Premium for $120 and finding out that hey! it also has Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Ultimate on that disc. I mean they already did the work before it even shipped, but if I find out later that Windows 7 Professional is the version I really wanted, I'd have to pay to upgrade. How come I can't just install Windows 7 Ultimate instead?



The answer will blow your mind. It's because you didn't pay for it.

Any money they can *take* from the government is rightfully theirs? Methinks you have it backwards. The government doesn't have their own money, they have that of taxpayers. How can one take one's own money?
Honest question, and answer with your first, gut instinct: Does the government grant rights to the people, or do the people grant power to the government?

2007: Youtube accounts for 10% of all traffic
2008: Youtube accounts for 35% of all streaming video; Streaming media accounts for 50% of all internet traffic. Doing the math, that puts Youtube around 12-15% of *all* traffic.

There's no good alternative because there's no good alternative.

Not even the same ballpark. That's like needing to drive to Chicago for the weekend and your car has broken down. Your friend pipes up, "Hey, we can take a go-cart!"