The terms of use seem pretty clear:

So what part of that seems unclear enough that it warrants a lawsuit? If you don't agree with terms of use, don't sign up for the service then whine when they catch you violating the terms of service and terminate your account.

Hmm....that's not the case on my phone (LG ENV2) -- after disabling all of the options, I was unable to do anything that incurs a charge. The only thing I can view with Mobile Web is the My Verizon page, which is free.

Or, you could go to the Verizon online service center, go to "Self Service Options->Add and delete Features" and select "Block Mobile Web", "Block VCast usage", "Block Ringtone Purchase", "Block Application Downloads", and "Block Premium SMS". Or just call Verizon and ask them to do the same.

If your complaint is that *you* want those features but you don't want your daughter to access them, then I think the correct answer is "Don't give her your phone". Please don't ask manufacturers to make child-proof phones just in case some parent wants to use it as a toy. I'm an adult and I like my phones to be easy to use, even if features that sometimes cost money are easy to activate.

Contrary to your opinion, it's possible to be a decent parent without being with your child 24x7. Raising children is a big responsibility and a full-time job, yet it's nice to be able to take a break from that job from time to time.

Some of the nicest, well adjusted young adults I know were raised by parents who both had demanding jobs and the children sometimes had to fend for themselves for entertainment.

For that matter, my mom was a stay-at-home mom, but I still have fond memories of watching non-stop Saturday morning cartoons with my sister, (dad was working, mom was doing whatever it is that mom's do), yet I still consider my parents to be excellent parents and am quite happy with how they raised me.

I think the point the parent poster was trying to make is that the car designer can design nearly unlimited mechanical advantage with the steering wheel. If he wants you to be able to turn the wheel 15 times to move the wheels from full left to full right, he can do so.

But even if it only takes the steering wheel one revolution to take the wheels from stop to stop, that's 360 degrees of motion, while the joystick is limited to around 90 degrees.

Furthermore, the described joystick is relying on wrist strength, which is a lot less than the full arm strength that a user can impart to the steering wheel.

All of this means that the joystick controlled steering is likely 100% "fly-by-wire", no mechanical connection.

Not quite all American cities are like that. I live and work in an American city that still viable for a walking (or transit based) commute. There are 3 supermarkets on my walk home from work (small markets, not a big Safeway or Albertsons, but they have a broad selection of groceries including produce, fish, meats, household cleaning supplies, etc). 2 produce markets. A well stocked hardware store. A half-dozen small corner markets. A veterinarian. Dentist. Eye Doctor. Hair salons. A hospital. And literally dozens of restaurants in many cuisines (Chinese, Japanese, Persian, Thai, Vietnamese, Italian, to name a few) within a 15 minute walk from home. On the rare occasions that I want to stock up on a lot of bulky or heavy items, I order from Safeway and pay them to deliver it to my door.

And what keeps you from tasting, changing the spelling, then retasting? I want "Yhoo.com". No wait, no hits to that one, I meant to type "Yaho.com". Sorry, another typo, I really want "Yhaoo.com". "ayhoo.com"? "yaaho.com"?

If you're going to set an arbitrary limit on how many times you can change the spelling before you get charged, why not just set a different arbitrary limit that tells the registrar how many deletes he can have before he gets penalized. Then he is free to set any rename/delete policy he wants, knowing that if he exceeds 10% then he'll get charged.

Except out the power lines that are good at radiating RF outside the house just like they are good at carrying RF inside the house. At least until they reach a transformer.

As long as his transfer switch has a 15A circuit breaker (most of the ones at DIY stores seem to) and the wire between the generator and transfer switch is sized to carry 20 amps, then I don't see the problem?

Oops, I got interrupted in the middle of composing this posting and made a couple mistakes.

where I said 1.8KWh above, I should have said 1.8Wh, but this is wrong anyway.

It takes 1400 gallons of diesel to ship the container, so that means that each bulb is using 1400 * 40000 Wh / 22000 = 2500 Wh

So it takes 35 hours for the CFL to recoup the energy used in shipping.

I didn't take into account the fact that turning diesel into electricity is not 100% efficient, so you're not going to get 40KHw out of a gallon of diesel. In real life it's probably closer to 50%. So that makes my numbers even more conservative and it's probably closer to 17 hours to recoup the energy cost.

I'll take a stab at the math.

A 20' container is approx 19' x 7' x 7' or 1.6M cubic inches (it's a bit bigger, but I left room for pallets, etc).

If a CFL + packaging is 3" x 4" x 6" = 72 in^3 then you can fit around 22,000 of them into a 20' container

This site claims you can ship a 20' container from China to the US for $3800 USD

Let's say that 75% of the shipping cost goes toward fuel, the rest goes to labor, paying off the ship, container rental, etc. Sounds reasonable.

I'm going to use Diesel for the energy calculations. I know that ships run off bunker fuel, not diesel, but I have to think that the cost per unit of energy for bunker fuel is cheaper than diesel since it's less refined, so by using Diesel I'm being conservative. Right now you can buy diesel for under $2/gal, so with 75% of $3800, we can buy 1425 gallons of diesel.

Diesel has 38 MJ of energy per liter (143 MJ/gal), or 40KWh according to the units command.

So, each light bulb uses 40KWh / 22,000 = 1.8 KWh (1800 Wh)of energy

A 29 Watt CFL can replace a 100 Watt incandescent bulb, so that's a 71 watt savings... 1800Wh / 71 W = 25 hours

Sooooo....a CFL will save the energy used to ship it in about 25 hours of operation. CFL's are supposed to last 5000 hours, so over its lifetime, it will save over 200 times more energy than used to ship it. (of course, this is only this shipping energy, and ignores the extra energy that it took to manufacture the CFL it as compared to an incadescent. I don't know how to do that math).

No, in your words. In my words, Youtube gives me more exposure because friends are sending me new videos hosted on Youtube.

Sorry, that was a little hyperbole on my part, I assumed (poor assumption on Slashdot, I know) that everyone read the article and would realize the the labels are already getting a cut of the profits.

You may have never encountered it, but thats where the market is heading -- as digital media gains more traction, it pushes traditional media to the side. I don't even listen to live music in my car anymore, why bother when I can pop a USB stick into my car stereo and listen to my favorite podcasts, or my favorite playlists.

Of course not, I never claimed that they should receive *no* compensation. As it says in the article:

So somehow, a revenue share that was fine for them for 2 years is no longer acceptable. Even though they benefit from it.

Why do you say that most consumer's behavior is different? I've given a specific example of how Youtube increases music sales, do you have any data (even anecdotal evidence) to the contrary? I'm saying that people that are exposed to music end up buying more music. Youtube is just another outlet where people can be exposed to music and it's hard to believe that more exposure doesn't lead to more sales. I'd be quite interested to see any data you have that links lost sales to exposure on Youtube or any other media outlet. Certainly there will be people that refuse to pay any money at all for music...well this Youtube deal is irrelevant to them - it's not like they will suddenly stop pirating music just because they can't see videos on Youtube. I'm referring only to those consumers that actually are willing to pay money for music.

Of course Youtube isn't exactly the same as a TV channel, it's better (for the consumer) and more directed, I can watch what I want when I want it (well I could if more media outlets would post their content).

If people in their 30's are embracing new media, then you can be certain that the college age group (traditionally heavy music consumers) is already farther along that path.

Of course TW has the right to do to anything they want with their content, but that doesn't mean that it's the smartest thing for them to do. Look at RIAA's recent about-face on suing music industry customers. The industry can either embrace how people want to find and consume music and find ways to monetize it, or simply drive consumers underground. Maybe people are willing to pay for music if it's available the way they want it.

Trying to force a legitimate music outlet to pay an unreasonable fee seems counter productive. Of course, I don't know what terms they are seeking, but based on the payout the industry was seeking from online broadcasters, it was likely exorbitant.

Yes I do consider my example to be relevant.

I'm a consumer, and Youtube facilitates me finding new music. I'm not one to go and seek out new music on my own, but if a friend sends me a link to some hot new band, I'm going to watch it, and if I like it, I'll buy it. I'm old enough and have enough income that I don't want to search out free music, if I like it I don't mind paying for it -- if it's an unencumbered MP3, I don't want to pay for DRM restricted music.

I don't think I'm that unusual as a consumer though I may be atypical for the Slashdot crowd.

But that's what it is - another "TV channel"! It's not where I go to find new music, that's better suited to true social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace. The labels need to adapt to this new model.

If people in my age group aren't finding new music on MTV (late 30's), I doubt that MTV is very relevant in the college age group either. Youtube is a great legitimate way to find music videos, if the labels make it too hard to find legitimate sources, then people will just trade them underground and instead of sending me links to Youtube videos, my friends will send me the video and/or audio files, then I'll have no need to buy anything.

I'm still upset over them shutting down mp3.com years ago -- that was a great way to buy music, I'd buy an album and download the MP3's and a week later the CD itself would show up in the mail. Plus I could listen to my entire music collection at home or at work. Great for the labels, and great for me. It's when they do stuff like that that drives people to music piracy.