I told the sales rep at Best buy that, that there was no connector difference between 1.3 and 1.4, the difference was in the features supported by the devices. But he persisted to argue that the more expensive cable was "1.4 compatible" while the cheaper one wasn't. He even carried on when I began loudly stating how much his argument made no sense, and why.

Of course, this was the same twit who tried to convince me that gold-plating the connector makes OPTICAL cables better. ;)

Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".

That's debatable, and several courts have allowed things like location trackers without warrant, and the searching of cell phones and computers. There's a new bill in the works to explicitly require warrants for electronic surveillance.

Good question. It seems the bill forbids the company from collecting the data from the phone, but there's nothing stating that the phone can't keep on recording that data.

Unless they have a warrant from law enforcement. Then they can ignore the request to delete.

No. The bill explicitly states that it does not affect collection of data by law enforcement, or transfer of location data to law enforcement.

That's covered under a different bill.

http://franken.senate.gov/files/docs/110614_The_Location_Privacy_Protection_Act_of_2011_One_pager.pdf

Then you end up with abuse of them.

The police are using a law not designed for them. They know it, and the writers knew it, but that didn't stop them from using it for purposes for which it was not intended. Hopefully the court recognizes this too...

Headache-inducing, no good game lineup, and you had to sit in an awkward position non-stop to play it. That was a mistake from the beginning.

Actually it's just an evolution of some ideas they've been poking around with tethering DSs to the Wii. There were a few games where you could use the DS as a Wiimote, and you had your own individual screen info.

This one seems more tilt-motion controlled rather than the fuller range the wiimote handled. I doubt anyone will swing this at their TV.

The people applying for the prize obviously think there's a quantifiable effect, or they wouldn't be applying.

So your argument is that Randi is trying to prevent the acknowledgement of proof that by definition cannot be proven. I'm sorry but that is stupid.

He doesn't test the unquantifiable. That's in the requirements. There has to be a quantifiable effect, or you shouldn't bother to apply for the prize.

Randi makes no judgement on the possibility of any para-normal science. He just says "show me that your claim that it affects the material world is demonstrable". Show him that in a double-blind test, you can demonstrate a reproducible, quantifiable effect of your "power". If your power has no material effect, he doesn't care either way.

I stand corrected. I was just reading through their forums, and seeing the back and forth over things like test procedures, failures and suggestions for improvements to test methods, etc.

An interesting read. You can tell who believes their powers, and who is just there to fail spectacularly and then claim the test itself is flawed in order to play victim.

Sure. But the problem is that 1.5 Teslas is NOT the magnetic output of the trinkets they sell in "natural cures" stores. Those are weak refrigerator magnets. 1.5 Teslas is the output of your standard $1,000,000 MRI. You CAN get rare earth magnets that can output 1 T over a very small area, but I guarantee you they aren't selling those in the stores attached to bracelets.

If I had to investigate every Tom, Dick, and Stupid who showed up at my door demanding that I prove that their stick can't find gold, I'd put in some pretty stringent rules to qualify too. You have to prove you're serious if you want to be considered. You have to be able to do something concrete (find things, affect materials in a detectable way, etc). These aren't just there to frustrate "true believers", they're there to weed out the claimants who "feel" their claims are justified, but haven't put any effort into documenting them. Hence the majority of people who walk away bitching about "the process" rather than actually putting any effort in.

On the other hand, might as well patent it, even if you have no intention of using it. Apple does that a lot. Comes up with an idea, patents it, and then never uses it. But it does ensure that anyone who DOES use it, owes Apple a chunk of change.