Only if it comes with the 'Band Camp' DLC.

@LM Lloyd-

How do you know the iPhone sales targets weren't formulated with Apple knowing their product roadmap and knowing that this support would be coming down the line? Looking at the presentation made today it seems to me that Apple has been planning on this for quite some time.

Now, someone hop on that SDK and work up a BB Connect solution for me please.

It seems to me that Apple handled all of this in a very smart manner. You want a phone that appeals to everyone, so launch it to Joe Blow customer first so that it doesn't get a stodgy corporate image attached to it from the start. Also let Joe Blow customer work out all of the kinks in the system since screwing up on Joe Blow = loss of $ for Apple but screwing up on Mega Corp = loss of $$$$$$$ for Apple.

@Melissa-

So the recliner is magically rocking itself at the 56 second mark when you play the doll?

Oh, and I guess that's an Oompah Loompah or something at the 1:43 mark of the video and not James standing there when you play the doll again.

Also, I clearly admitted that I've never used one of these Elmo's before.

But, no offense, this certainly does smell like you're setting up a lawsuit.

So wait, this woman thinks it's horrible for her kid to hear the Elmo say "kill James" and is upset that her son is repating those words, and then goes on TV and makes the Elmo say "kill James" how many times with her kid running around right there??? Nice.

I don't know how this thing interfaces with the computer, but my money is on this being a lawsuit setup after someone used the computer to reprogram the doll.

This situation is all very simple when you cut through the President's fear-mongering BS.

In 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed. You can find it at 50 USC s.1801. FISA provided for a special court (the Foreing Intelligence Surveillance Court or FISC) with special judges to issue special warrants relating to electronic surveillance (wiretapping, etc). FISA provides for telecom company immunity to suit when the telecom company is complying with the FISA warrant.

In the history of the FISA court only 5 applications for warrants have ever been rejected.

After September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration decides it needs to spy on people more to protect the country. President Bush doesn't want to use the FISA court (no known reason why) so he orders his administration (the NSA) to wiretap without warrants.

The NSA orders telecom companies to turn over records and access to certain phone lines without a FISA warrant. Telecom companies comply, telecom companies get sued by the people affected.

Warrantless wiretapping comes to light in the New York Times. People outraged.

Congress passes the Protect America act in August 2007. The PAA authroizes warrantless wiretapping and protects telecom companies from lawsuits stemming from their compliance with NSA orders to wiretap. The PAA is limited in time, expiring in early 2008. Remember, immunity to suit is provided as part of FISA.

President Bush is now seeking an extension of PAA with the inclusion of immunity to suit for the telecom companies. Congres is balking, probably in an attempt to force the President to use the FISA and FISC, both of which have been around for over 25 years and used by every president before this one. The President is simply trying to get around the rules and regulations set forth in FISA and protect the telecom companies he put at risk through his illegal actions by divesting the courts of the USA of their power to hear the already pending lawsuits. Note, these lawsuits would not exist if President Bush had just complied with the law from the beginning.

Why we should be scared/outraged/curious/care: the President willfully and knowingly violated the laws of the United States and is now trying to gain more power when there is a perfectly viable and usable system to accomplish what he claims he wants to accomplish already in existence.

Purity of Essence man.

Purity of Essence.

@fahnboi

The thing is that the court decided that the pants were not worth $54mm and repremaneded the plaintiff in that case.

Also, I'm not the chair of the ethics committe, but I do know that you have to have a good faith basis for your prayer for damages in court. There are also presumptive limits on non-economic damages. Believe it or not there are ethics rules that governm lawyers (I presume she hired a lawyer for this)...there's even a national exam for it! The ethics I mentioned are these ethics rules.

I for one plan on crushing these robots.

Screw the whole overloard thing.

My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns hun.

Your mom goes to college.