Feel free to make & sell your own designs for $29 a piece - I would be one of your customers, unless someone else is cheaper than you.

Maybe because he was on the phone with someone already (his girlfriend) at the time, and thought he had better chances to run than to call the police that may show up in 15 minutes, when its too late?

I didn't know Romney had a /. account

I guess for that to happen, you would need a story about a prediction from 30 years ago that turned out to be wrong. And guess what, then everyone would say that's redundant because there were thousands of those from that year. Now, wouldn't it be interesting if both those studies were done by the same people/institute/method/etc?

We should ban any weapons or other tools those people use as well, including cars, bats, and dogs

Phones used to be there to call people. For that, you need a network. If people don't know anyone else on the network, many will not even consider it.

Now, if you would market it as a "mobile internet service that can also make some phone calls" - I think it would work today. Maybe 2 years ago was still too early - iPhone was only with AT&T, and Android was not wide spread yet.

It sounds like you had a good idea, but your timing was just a bit too early.

I think even means something different than what you think it means

Why do you think that a "nanosatellite" needs to control its attitude?

The questions is: Will the people living int he US finally elect a competent set of leaders, or will this worsening problem require an external solution? I guess another alternative would be a revolution? How many more years like this?

one for each customer, of course! Do you know how long it takes to install & configure one PC?

If I were the thief, I would claim that those pictures were already there before, and deleted them when I first saw them. Doesn't sound like great plan...

So they have your picture from camera, they can see how you walk and move from video, they know your car's license plate, they know which shops you go to, when and where you pay (via your phone), and if you pay with credit card, they know who you are as well. Who cares if this is PII or not? A marketer has everything they need. Example: "Oh wow, it looks like this person is a shopaholic, they are spending money like crazy! Let's toe their car to the other side of the mall so that they spent more time here!" Next thing you know, the shops sales team will start running after you on the parking lot...

What do you think happens when you pay with your credit card? Or when you pull onto the parking lot with your car's license plate on camera? Oh, if they are not sure which one of those family members it is, then just ring the biggest suspect's phone, and see if they pick up - simple!

Why do you want to fly in the first one that will crash?

There is a difference between a key word that triggers an add, and the text in the ad. It's not (and shouldn't) be admissible to use competitor's registered trade names in advertisements in order to deceive a consumer. Google provides a way to protect registered trade names in ad text. However, Google also provides a way to dynamically insert search terms into the ad text. It's this situation where a competitor's trade name was placed in an ad text by Google - and hence the lawsuit.

Simple solution: Registered trade names (via the method Google already has) cannot be substituted dynamically into ad text. Or: If a registered trade name is in the keywords, then the option for keyword insertion is disabled for that ad group's ad texts.