$250/month for three phones is crazy. Check out ting.com. You have to buy the phone up front (you can probably BYOD if you use Sprint), but the monthly charges are generally a lot less. I went from about $90 for a family plan with 2 phones (no data or text, about 1200 minutes for voice) to about $50 for the same amount of voice and light data and text. Don't use your monthly allocation of minutes? They credit your account. I'm one happy customer.

Well, one pilot recognized the stall (the left-seater, IIRC) and pushed the stick forward. The right-seater, the most junior member of the aircrew, was the one pulling back. The problem was that the right-seater wasn't communicating what he was doing, and the left-seater didn't say, "pilot's airplane" or do anything else that established that he was the one in control.

The senior pilot, who was on rest when the incident began, also recognized the stall and got the junior pilot to finally say that he was pulling back, but by then they were too low to recover.

Agree about the sticks moving in concert - when there is a disagreement, the pilots should know about it.

Came here looking for FIRST recommendations, and was not disappointed. However, I would recommend FTC instead of FRC; you learn just as much about robotics, the time pressure is much less, and the cost is lower. Start at http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/ftc/mentors and check out the Mentor Guide and the "Start a Team" link under Game & Season Info.

Either way, this is the time of the year when it's good for FIRST teams to bring on new members and start learning the basics of robotics, like OP desires. I think it's better for OP to learn while s?he teaches.

He is totally responsible for defining the process by which a VP is chosen and for the end result. If he's not responsible for that, then he is responsible for none of his decisions. I agree that the candidate does not need to like the running mate, but the candidate is darn well responsible for picking the running mate.

Came here to say the same thing. I'll add that AT&T is probably planning to use dumping, one of the classic anti-competitive behaviors.

In classic dumping, the incumbent (AT&T) offers the service at price calculated to drive the competition out of business. Given Google's $60 billion in current accounts (as of GOOG's last 10-K), I don't think this plan will work. If Google were structured normally and started losing money, the shareholders would start pressuring management to pull the plug on the broadband ventures. However, given GOOG's two-class ownership structure, shareholder pressure is minimized. So Larry Page can keep this up just as long as he pleases (as long as GOOG continues to make money in its other ventures).

James B. Steward of the NY Times explains why.

The gift could have included paying the contract, or the gift could have been of an unlocked, no-contract phone. Nobody said it was an inexpensive gift...

Discover is a second-rate card? I use my Discover about 20 times more than my MasterCard.

As TFA notes, he will hire a lawyer and get it back. The only variable is when; my guess is that within two weeks, he'll be sailing around. However, if the government accuses the boat of being the proceeds of a drug transaction (very unlikely, since there was no cash or drugs anywhere around) it will take longer. But "stole" makes for a much better headline than the truth, "confiscated", doesn't it?

Not in the original release in theaters it wasn't. And Han shot first! What are you still doing on my lawn?

Who would do something like that? Somebody who was on the phone with technical people at Tesla during the trip, including when he disconnected from the charger in Norwich.

Broder should have recorded his conversations with the Tesla folks. This adventure is turning into a "he said, she said".

No, the only part of a takedown request that is subject to criminal charges is this, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 (c)(3)(A)(iv):

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Note the accuracy part is NOT subject to perjury. So if you're an agent for a copyright holder (even if the copyright is for completely different content), then the perjury part does not apply. The civil penalties do apply.

Interestingly, in the copy of the email at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/wordpress-removes-anil-potti-posts-from-retraction-watch-in-error-after-false-dmca-copyright-claim/ the complaining party got this wrong:

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.: Yes

It's a little bit more than bad faith from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 (c)(3)(A) starting at part i and especially iv , a valid takedown request must have:

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Since the Indian site was not the owner of the allegedly infringed content, the complaining party could be subjected to perjury. However, there is an easy defense - the complaining party (or the owner) could say, "oops, I thought the site was infringing other content, which I do own the copyright to". Note that the perjury part applies to the authorization, not to the accuracy of the information in the notification. Overall, the "under penalty of perjury" part is pretty much toothless.

The DMCA says unlocking is illegal. The (soon to be expired) exemption says that unlocking is legal. There is nothing in the exemption or in the DMCA about a contract.

Right, especially given the description in 6(e)(1)

Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device...

Seeing as how subsection iv uses the same language:

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

Clearly the "recording device" in 6(e)(2)(B)(iv) mentioned is the same as the one in 6(e)(1). It should be pretty clear that (iv) was meant to apply to the person running the audio or video recorder when the proceedings are recorded instead of (or in addition to) using a court reporter.