The CDMA iPhone actually does have an antenna change, which most of these "OMG VERIZON DEATH GRIP IPHONE" hacks are ignoring. There are two antennas (as is standard in CDMA), one on each side of the phone. To block most of these (and actually drop a call) you have to squeeze pretty hard (and possibly put the phone in a lead box). Getting the bars to decrease and getting a call to end are two entirely different things.
Give up the privacy invasion argument. If you can't turn a key because of your physical state, then the issue is with you and the lock, not Big Brother or anyone else. Now, if the car were connected to the internet and submitting its readings to a database, you might have an argument. But if it's just to stop you from driving, hell, I'd put one in voluntarily. Sober you can't directly control drunk you, but you can put in good preventative measures.
Except we can and do regularly protest the president. Every damn president. I don't think anyone could do a job over half the country would consider any good.
I've thought for a while now that we need to get rid of the interstate commerce clause, and put in its place more specific rules. Even if it didn't change anything, it would help settle Congress's power into what it is now and prevent future expansion. If it needs toned down from there, that can be done afterwards.
I read recently (forgive me, I cannot remember where) that the actual reason we are unable to use our cell phones on airplanes is that the phone would be able to connect to multiple cell phone towers at once, thus tying up several times more connections than it normally would. A plane full of a hundred people doing this then eats up thousands of connections.
As much as we want to believe that the magician has actually caused someone to float, we know he hasn't. That person is still following every last law of physics. The magician is inherently deceptive. The idea of meditating to cause levitation, then, either is also deceptive, or has nothing to do with magicians.
Unless that was the simplest way for them to handle that legal issue. I'm reserving judgement until someone shows the whole story there, instead of biased folk on/.
Not quite. There are some who are thoroughly entrenched in what they claim is the middle, but is really just some off-the-wall angle no one cares about.
Believe me, they've tried suing them for violating their contract. The spambots won that one. Using the DMCA is their last resort. And also, Blizzard dumps millions into preventing these guys. They don't need their money (despite what an above poster said). As soon as Blizzard patches an exploit or blocks a bad IP address, a new one pops up. As far as your slippery slope argument, that's silly. If anything it will show people that the DMCA is broken and new, more accurate laws are necessary to define (and limit) the government's role in the internet.
What's the peaceful resolution they should be aiming for? What branch of the government can they appeal to to restrict the power of government to intervene without precedent? The courts are obviously not going to help them, nor the legislators, nor the president or any various governors.
The first few examples you gave are dead-on and have been proven to be the causes of countless accidents, but recent studies have actually shown that an attentive passenger in the car does not affect your driving nearly as much as a cell phone. Since they are aware of what's going on and can see for themselves when things get hectic, the risk is much lower.
"[O]nce the vehicle crashes, the technology that disrupts the use of cell phones will most likely be damaged as well."
Right. Once the vehicle crashes, the lifeline-blocking technology should be broken. Just make sure your crash the right way. In fact, if you are talking on your phone or texting, you'll crash the wrong way, the jammer will be intact, and you will die a deserved death. If you crash like a good person, you'll be able to make that 911 call.
But the court didn't admit that the rich were abusing the poor. The court decided that the events that occurred did not constitute negative information and opinion in the legal sense. It did not decide, however, that the plaintiffs were wrong for filing. The end. No significant precedent set.
That used to be the case! A corporation, or really any group, was limited in the way it could fund a campaign. It could only give an amount equal to the limits of personal giving of each of its members, and they weren't allowed to give on their own outside of it. This SCOTUS ruling destroyed that!
It looked to me like they were sending out individual "You owe us _____" letters. Obviously it's not worth it for someone without the cash to blow to get a lawyer to help them fight it, and that's the real crime. It's cheaper to pay them what they want and go away.
No, the culprit here is the guy on the production team who leaked it. That's who these people need to go after. This smells of lawyers trying to keep their clients from realizing how totally unnecessary they are. How much will 5000 trials cost the people paying for these lawyers, and how much will that cost the taxpayers? We ought to be in a riot that people are abusing our legal system like this.
Slashdot Mirror
The CDMA iPhone actually does have an antenna change, which most of these "OMG VERIZON DEATH GRIP IPHONE" hacks are ignoring. There are two antennas (as is standard in CDMA), one on each side of the phone. To block most of these (and actually drop a call) you have to squeeze pretty hard (and possibly put the phone in a lead box). Getting the bars to decrease and getting a call to end are two entirely different things.
Maybe some alternative Italian spelling?
I wish you many angry replies, good troll.
Give up the privacy invasion argument. If you can't turn a key because of your physical state, then the issue is with you and the lock, not Big Brother or anyone else. Now, if the car were connected to the internet and submitting its readings to a database, you might have an argument. But if it's just to stop you from driving, hell, I'd put one in voluntarily. Sober you can't directly control drunk you, but you can put in good preventative measures.
Except we can and do regularly protest the president. Every damn president. I don't think anyone could do a job over half the country would consider any good.
I've thought for a while now that we need to get rid of the interstate commerce clause, and put in its place more specific rules. Even if it didn't change anything, it would help settle Congress's power into what it is now and prevent future expansion. If it needs toned down from there, that can be done afterwards.
I read recently (forgive me, I cannot remember where) that the actual reason we are unable to use our cell phones on airplanes is that the phone would be able to connect to multiple cell phone towers at once, thus tying up several times more connections than it normally would. A plane full of a hundred people doing this then eats up thousands of connections.
As much as we want to believe that the magician has actually caused someone to float, we know he hasn't. That person is still following every last law of physics. The magician is inherently deceptive. The idea of meditating to cause levitation, then, either is also deceptive, or has nothing to do with magicians.
My god, I read that. From what I can tell, that guy was so awful there's truth in his ED story. That's pretty bad.
For those who don't care to click the link, AC just said that a Battle Bot is more amazing than things such as Big Dog.
Hatred ruins whatever intelligence went into your post. People aren't bad for disagreeing with you.
Unless that was the simplest way for them to handle that legal issue. I'm reserving judgement until someone shows the whole story there, instead of biased folk on /.
I'd vote for that.
Not quite. There are some who are thoroughly entrenched in what they claim is the middle, but is really just some off-the-wall angle no one cares about.
Believe me, they've tried suing them for violating their contract. The spambots won that one. Using the DMCA is their last resort. And also, Blizzard dumps millions into preventing these guys. They don't need their money (despite what an above poster said). As soon as Blizzard patches an exploit or blocks a bad IP address, a new one pops up. As far as your slippery slope argument, that's silly. If anything it will show people that the DMCA is broken and new, more accurate laws are necessary to define (and limit) the government's role in the internet.
Calm down. I know several people say "illegal" instead of "Violation of the Terms of Use and/or the End User License Agreement."
What's the peaceful resolution they should be aiming for? What branch of the government can they appeal to to restrict the power of government to intervene without precedent? The courts are obviously not going to help them, nor the legislators, nor the president or any various governors.
The first few examples you gave are dead-on and have been proven to be the causes of countless accidents, but recent studies have actually shown that an attentive passenger in the car does not affect your driving nearly as much as a cell phone. Since they are aware of what's going on and can see for themselves when things get hectic, the risk is much lower.
"[O]nce the vehicle crashes, the technology that disrupts the use of cell phones will most likely be damaged as well." Right. Once the vehicle crashes, the lifeline-blocking technology should be broken. Just make sure your crash the right way. In fact, if you are talking on your phone or texting, you'll crash the wrong way, the jammer will be intact, and you will die a deserved death. If you crash like a good person, you'll be able to make that 911 call.
But the court didn't admit that the rich were abusing the poor. The court decided that the events that occurred did not constitute negative information and opinion in the legal sense. It did not decide, however, that the plaintiffs were wrong for filing. The end. No significant precedent set.
People with lawyers use the system to hurt those who have no lawyers. News at 11.
That sucks bro. And?
That used to be the case! A corporation, or really any group, was limited in the way it could fund a campaign. It could only give an amount equal to the limits of personal giving of each of its members, and they weren't allowed to give on their own outside of it. This SCOTUS ruling destroyed that!
It looked to me like they were sending out individual "You owe us _____" letters. Obviously it's not worth it for someone without the cash to blow to get a lawyer to help them fight it, and that's the real crime. It's cheaper to pay them what they want and go away.
No, the culprit here is the guy on the production team who leaked it. That's who these people need to go after. This smells of lawyers trying to keep their clients from realizing how totally unnecessary they are. How much will 5000 trials cost the people paying for these lawyers, and how much will that cost the taxpayers? We ought to be in a riot that people are abusing our legal system like this.