As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?
DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.
Except that in a mob riot physical property can get destroyed, people can be injured or killed -- it's not the same.
Normally when a person goes to a store, they do not linger, their presence is transient; Protesters have a less transient presence -- Their presence is felt by customers who would enter the store for a while, but not permanently; Some customers may be turned away, but no one should be injured.
When all you have is the Internet, every thing looks like a packet. You can't protest in front of say, Mastercard.com. The only presence you have is your web traffic. It's not like the packets sent by LOIC were maliciously crafted -- the alleged "attack toolkit" was very ineffective as one; It was intended to be used as a protest toolkit (Intent should be considered). The protest toolkit didn't attempt to hide the identities of those involved, LOIC didn't infect and use people's machines without permission (as bot-nets do), and it didn't perform a reflected attack to multiply its effect -- Each participant only contributed their own presence (web traffic).
The protest's web traffic was felt by those who would enter the affected web site for a while, but not permanently; Some visitors were turned away, but no one was injured.
Some visitors could not just ignore the protest and enter the web site, much like how a large enough real life protest may cause drivers to pause momentarily, the combined effect, known as rubbernecking, can cause temporary vehicle traffic problems which could prevent a customer from ignoring the protests effects.
To me, Anonymous' digital protest has a lot more similarities to a real life peaceful protest than to an angry mob setting fires to cars, smashing windows, looting, and killing or injuring innocent bystanders; The protests were very different than a bot-net controlled by a small number of malcontents which infects thousands of machines against the will of their owners and uses them in a (R(D))DOS attack.
Anonymous participants intended to protest digitally. When all you have is a hammer... Well, all they had was the Internet.
I understand the differences between a DDOS and an actual riot. Perhaps I should have said metaphor rather than analogy. I was attempting to explain my perception that DDOS is nothing more than digital vandalism. After all, it's commonly used as a tool for extortion, even if the intent was different in this case.
Why would you say that all they had was the Internet? Did actual protesting where one has to actually get up off of their ass, out of their chair and actually go somewhere suddenly become impossible? DDOS as a tool for positive change is about as effective as online petitions. Probably less so.
oh, yes, isn't it so "ironic" that they're attacking business who are complicit in the government's attempt to circumvent the first amendment by pressuring businesses to "voluntarily" do the censorship for them.
Next, you'll be complaining it's kinda ironic that they're attaching the freedom of the government to ride roughshod over the consitition.
My god, the freedom! Where will it ever end!
Even if I were to grant that everything you said is 100% accurate, it is simply not effective to protest restrictions of free speech by restricting free speech. The DDOS attacks in Wikileak's name did far more to damage the public perception of Wikileaks than it did in denying electronic services to the targets.
As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?
DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.
The article notes that it wasn't so much about what he built as how he did it; by interacting with the kids and incorporating their suggestions into his design.
You are referring, of course, to sites like Slashdot, Google, etc? The overwhelming majority of all Internet content is advertising-supported.
Hmm... I haven't had ads on Slashdot for some time. There is a nice little checkbox telling me that I don't need to see them*.
Slashdot provides that feature to a subset of users, presumably because they receive sufficient value from our comments or moderations. The rest of the users see ads in exchange for content. I've no idea how many are exempt or not.
Google is an ADVERTISING COMPANY, 90+% of its revenue is from serving ads to other people, not displaying them.
Google Search, Maps, Apps and Mail are all for-profit advertising-supported web services. Not much point in products that lose money.
Outside of news sites, who haven't figured out how to actually sell their product in the modern age (thanks to ignoring that "internet trend" for the last 10 years), most sites that expect revenue are selling a... you know... product.
Agreed on the traditional news sites. How about Lifehacker, Engadget, Gizmodo, MaximumPC, Youtube, Hulu, etc? I don't know if you think their content is crap or not, but that's how it's paid for.
If there were micropayments, I wouldn't simply ignore 90% of sites begging for money, since 90% of everything is crap and thus not worth even a couple real-life cents to me.
That's your call, of course. Right now the implied agreement is you see ads in exchange for free content. Obviously if the content is crap you won't be visiting that site. So where's the problem?
I don't understand the brouhaha your raising here. Your site doesn't have any ads, and its product is open source and free (from what I could tell).
*I was feeling generous the other day, and unchecked the box, and turned APB off on Slashdot, but some stupid ad wouldn't load, and caused every damn page to hang indefinitely. APB is on, and the box is once again checked. Google is still the only site/server that isn't blocked.
I have no personal stake in this issue. I just think it's important to appreciate the content provider's perspective in all this. No such thing as a free lunch.
Objectively, if I'm funding my site with advertising and you block it, why should you be allowed to access my content?
Well its certainly your right to withhold the page until the ads are downloaded (even until they are displayed if you want a high rate of instant exits).
But this isn't a war you can win in the long run. Browsers or plugins will always find a way to defeat your ads, and the harder you try to push them into your reader's faces the less successful you will be.
Whether it the tools simply skip downloading your ads or downloads the ads in the background, people are not going to watch intrusive ads.
The "Skip this welcome page" ad sites have found their bandwidth utilization up, and their customer click-exits growing faster than their content delivery.
Not many people block Google Ads, because they are usually topical and un-intrusive. But any method to insure I read your ads is bound to fail.
I get your argument, truly. Personally, I run an ad blocker, I don't host a commercial web site, and I've never earned $1 off Internet advertising.
Point remains, though, something has to pay for all this free content we enjoy. Right now that something is primarily advertising. I suppose micropayments could replace advertising if it came to that.
Slashdot lets me off the hook for ads, probably just because I've been around so long (thanks!).
So, a company that became huge and rich from advertising and trying to "judge" us based on our clicks is now acting like They don't do it? Unless you are actually told about stuff like this then it is safe to say that Google is no better. I mean, come on, look at all the tracking cookies and stuff it uses, and you have to search for a way to disable them, and how many people will do that? That is like me being a bank robber, and then telling others to not rob banks and also tell some banks that ONLY if they talk to me ahead of time, I will not rob from them.
I tell you what Google, how about you stop using them yourself before you act like you are a huge activist behind getting rid of them.
Google isn't saying that cookies are bad. They are saying some people don't like or want them, and providing a tool to block them if desired. There's no holier-than-thou going on here.
Not to mention that it can be used to prevent access to sites. I've been on sites that block access if you use Adblock or NoScript. Not sure how they recognize it(because I never tried to look), but they do
Objectively, if I'm funding my site with advertising and you block it, why should you be allowed to access my content?
That particular case was about ten years ago, so it would not have been put onto the internet, but there are plenty of other examples if you google for "airplane interference", for example this one. (scroll down to "some anecdotes")
Interesting, but I was hoping something with actual data as opposed to word-of-mouth stories?
I'm sorry, but this was an actual fact. A full investigation confirmed it, and the effect was reproduced afterwards. It was reported in our company's safety magazine. The CD player did cause fuel indications to go to zero.
Are there any links to the investigation? I'm not doubting you, I'm just genuinely curious to read about it.
Why do you think your book can bring down the plane during take off or landing, but not while cruising? Simples - it can't.
The main issue is that most accidents happen at takeoff or landing, and the faster people react and do the right thing, the more lives saved. Taking stuff that can fly around the cabin away from people and putting it in the seatback pocket reduces the risk of a book putting someone's eye out if it flies across the cabin later. Forcing you out of your earplugs means that they have a better chance of getting your attention if something goes wrong.
Do you see the problem with what you're saying? A Kindle is no more dangerous than a book when flying around the cabin. Less dangerous than a hardback, even. I see people, especially on international flights, using earplugs all the time. That's no more dangerous than headphones.
The problem is that these explanations make no sense when their analog equivalents are permitted without a blink of the eye.
There are many possible reasons why electronics of various types should be turned off, most of the covered by the discussion here. However, most importantly, THEY SHOULD BE TURNED OFF BECAUSE THE RULE IS TO TURN THEM OFF. That's right, I'm advocating obeying the rule just because there is a rule. Sounds like I'm some kind of wuss, huh?
We like to think that we are a nation of laws, not men (read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law or here http://robertdfeinman.com/society/men_not_laws.html. A fundamental premise of this is that everyone is supposed to obey the law. I'm sure everyone can cite examples where this is not so (police giving other police a pass for infractions, etc.) but in general it is a very useful and egalitarian way to order society. We order society so that society is possible. Without order there would be chaos. One way to order society is to have multiple classes of people - you know, the nobles and the peasants. There are some who feel that this is the rightful order of things. Others don't. In the United States, one of the basic premises of our society is that everyone follows the rules. Sure, we know its not always true. But the more we pursue the ideal, the greater the chance that we will come close to it.
I get aggravated every time I see someone flaunt their disrespect for the law, such as when driving in traffic. We've all seen someone cut to the head of a line, etc. Why do we get angry? Well, its not fair, for one thing. For another, most of us recognize that its extremely easy to break the law and we probably wouldn't get "caught" (i.e., punished by some enforcer of the law), but we obey it anyway. We are frustrated with those don't, in part because most of us are smart enough to realize that if we all disregarded those laws, we would have chaos. The rule breaking only works if a very few people do it. So those few people have anointed themselves as somehow being above the rest of us. Nothing is more sure to tick a person off then another person placing themselves above that first person, especially in a society that believes it is egalitarian.
So think about it the next time you are breaking a rule, probably because you think you know it is a harmless infraction. Who are you ticking off with your self-importance? How much are you encouraging others to also choose to bend/break a rule, perhaps one more important? How much are you contributing to disorder and chaos?
Most importantly, how much are you contributing to the kind of thinking exhibited by those like Ms. Huffington who obviously think that "rules are for the little people"?
Many horrible, horrible things have been done by people who were following rules. I understand your argument and to some point even agree with much of what you're saying. Reasonable men must follow reasonable rules. The challenge is when the rules seem unreasonable, and no rational explanation can be provided.
What does this strawman about Twitter outrage have to do with my wanting to read an eBook during takeoff and landing? Sitting and staring at the chair in front of me is boring, my book is interesting. My Nook even has an airplane mode. Why should I spend 20 minutes of the flight doing nothing instead of reading quietly?
Where is the study that shows using electronics during takeoff or landing decreases situational awareness or reaction times more than reading or sleeping?
I'm not saying that being alert and paying attention is beneficial. I'm saying that a blanket ban on personal electronics for that reason is a bunch of crap. A ban on headphones during takeoff or landing is reasonable. A ban on an eBook with no wifi or cell capability is bullshit.
Probably because flight attendants have a hard enough time getting passengers to turn off electronics, so forbidding people to read would probably just really piss everyone off. Also, and this applies to me personally, probably not for everyone, but when I read a book I am still a litle bit attentive to what is going on around me, but put me infront of an electronic device, and I'm in my own little universe, isolated from the outside world.
Reading has been allowed since before personal electronics were even possible. Heck, you could read a book with a lit cigarette during takeoff and landing for decades. The electronics ban is simply a leftover from interference problems that ceased to exist decades ago.
Don't confuse this. Electronics are banned on take off and landing for different reasons, not just for interference. Electronics are banned for radio interference, because that is the easy explanation, but one of the multiple reasons is passenger attention. Take off and landing are, statistically, the most dangerous times, where all passengers are required to be attentive to what goes on. When you take off at night and they dim the cabin lights, some people say that it is for electrical considerations, but it also gets your eyes used to the outside light in case you need to evacuate. Airplanes and procedures are carefully planned so that you can evacuate quickly in case of an emergency, and people being distracted form electronics isn't really a good idea.
Yeah, I pay much more attention when reading paper material instead of my eReader, which must remain off until 10,000 feet for some reason known to no man. Next myth, please.
Slashdot Mirror
Your opinion may or may not be illegal. I'll prohibit it while I check. How does that make any sense?
Replace "opinion" with "actions". This is fairly common in civil cases.
no, I will NOT login to their stupid site.
either post a free-in-the-clear article or don't post NYT links at all. if they don't WANT to be linked to, fine.
but if they want a link, they have to cease the stupid games.
if you MUST link to nyt, at least quote enough of the text for us to get the point.
(still better to just assume NYT does not exist; that's what they basically think of us 'freeloaders')
There was no paywall or login required to view the article. Your rant is misplaced.
I kindly ask everyone to read the entire article first before judging it as an attempt to discredit. I think it's a captivating story worth reading.
Agreed, the article is well worth the time to read in entirety.
As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?
DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.
Except that in a mob riot physical property can get destroyed, people can be injured or killed -- it's not the same.
Normally when a person goes to a store, they do not linger, their presence is transient; Protesters have a less transient presence -- Their presence is felt by customers who would enter the store for a while, but not permanently; Some customers may be turned away, but no one should be injured.
When all you have is the Internet, every thing looks like a packet. You can't protest in front of say, Mastercard.com. The only presence you have is your web traffic. It's not like the packets sent by LOIC were maliciously crafted -- the alleged "attack toolkit" was very ineffective as one; It was intended to be used as a protest toolkit (Intent should be considered). The protest toolkit didn't attempt to hide the identities of those involved, LOIC didn't infect and use people's machines without permission (as bot-nets do), and it didn't perform a reflected attack to multiply its effect -- Each participant only contributed their own presence (web traffic).
The protest's web traffic was felt by those who would enter the affected web site for a while, but not permanently; Some visitors were turned away, but no one was injured.
Some visitors could not just ignore the protest and enter the web site, much like how a large enough real life protest may cause drivers to pause momentarily, the combined effect, known as rubbernecking, can cause temporary vehicle traffic problems which could prevent a customer from ignoring the protests effects.
To me, Anonymous' digital protest has a lot more similarities to a real life peaceful protest than to an angry mob setting fires to cars, smashing windows, looting, and killing or injuring innocent bystanders; The protests were very different than a bot-net controlled by a small number of malcontents which infects thousands of machines against the will of their owners and uses them in a (R(D))DOS attack.
Anonymous participants intended to protest digitally.
When all you have is a hammer... Well, all they had was the Internet.
I understand the differences between a DDOS and an actual riot. Perhaps I should have said metaphor rather than analogy. I was attempting to explain my perception that DDOS is nothing more than digital vandalism. After all, it's commonly used as a tool for extortion, even if the intent was different in this case.
Why would you say that all they had was the Internet? Did actual protesting where one has to actually get up off of their ass, out of their chair and actually go somewhere suddenly become impossible? DDOS as a tool for positive change is about as effective as online petitions. Probably less so.
oh, yes, isn't it so "ironic" that they're attacking business who are complicit in the government's attempt to circumvent the first amendment by pressuring businesses to "voluntarily" do the censorship for them.
Next, you'll be complaining it's kinda ironic that they're attaching the freedom of the government to ride roughshod over the consitition.
My god, the freedom! Where will it ever end!
Even if I were to grant that everything you said is 100% accurate, it is simply not effective to protest restrictions of free speech by restricting free speech. The DDOS attacks in Wikileak's name did far more to damage the public perception of Wikileaks than it did in denying electronic services to the targets.
As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?
DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.
$37,500 starting salary...
(Stupid new Slashdot layout breaks italics.)
With an engineering degree and experience. Pathetic.
My first job straight out of school paid considerably less than that, and unemployment was nowhere near as high as today's level.
OK, maybe I was too harsh. He only had an hour.
The article notes that it wasn't so much about what he built as how he did it; by interacting with the kids and incorporating their suggestions into his design.
Same here Firefox/Windows. Chrome looks fine.
Same thing in FF 4.0b9.
You are referring, of course, to sites like Slashdot, Google, etc? The overwhelming majority of all Internet content is advertising-supported.
Hmm... I haven't had ads on Slashdot for some time. There is a nice little checkbox telling me that I don't need to see them*.
Slashdot provides that feature to a subset of users, presumably because they receive sufficient value from our comments or moderations. The rest of the users see ads in exchange for content. I've no idea how many are exempt or not.
Google is an ADVERTISING COMPANY, 90+% of its revenue is from serving ads to other people, not displaying them.
Google Search, Maps, Apps and Mail are all for-profit advertising-supported web services. Not much point in products that lose money.
Outside of news sites, who haven't figured out how to actually sell their product in the modern age (thanks to ignoring that "internet trend" for the last 10 years), most sites that expect revenue are selling a... you know... product.
Agreed on the traditional news sites. How about Lifehacker, Engadget, Gizmodo, MaximumPC, Youtube, Hulu, etc? I don't know if you think their content is crap or not, but that's how it's paid for.
If there were micropayments, I wouldn't simply ignore 90% of sites begging for money, since 90% of everything is crap and thus not worth even a couple real-life cents to me.
That's your call, of course. Right now the implied agreement is you see ads in exchange for free content. Obviously if the content is crap you won't be visiting that site. So where's the problem?
I don't understand the brouhaha your raising here. Your site doesn't have any ads, and its product is open source and free (from what I could tell).
*I was feeling generous the other day, and unchecked the box, and turned APB off on Slashdot, but some stupid ad wouldn't load, and caused every damn page to hang indefinitely. APB is on, and the box is once again checked. Google is still the only site/server that isn't blocked.
I have no personal stake in this issue. I just think it's important to appreciate the content provider's perspective in all this. No such thing as a free lunch.
Objectively, if I'm funding my site with advertising and you block it, why should you be allowed to access my content?
Well its certainly your right to withhold the page until the ads are downloaded (even until they are displayed if you want a high rate of instant exits).
But this isn't a war you can win in the long run. Browsers or plugins will always find a way to defeat your ads, and the harder you try to push them into your reader's faces the less successful you will be.
Whether it the tools simply skip downloading your ads or downloads the ads in the background, people are not going to watch intrusive ads.
The "Skip this welcome page" ad sites have found their bandwidth utilization up, and their customer click-exits growing faster than their content delivery.
Not many people block Google Ads, because they are usually topical and un-intrusive. But any method to insure I read your ads is bound to fail.
I get your argument, truly. Personally, I run an ad blocker, I don't host a commercial web site, and I've never earned $1 off Internet advertising.
Point remains, though, something has to pay for all this free content we enjoy. Right now that something is primarily advertising. I suppose micropayments could replace advertising if it came to that.
Slashdot lets me off the hook for ads, probably just because I've been around so long (thanks!).
Bad news, if you need advertising to fund your site then it's clear the content is worthless.
You are referring, of course, to sites like Slashdot, Google, etc? The overwhelming majority of all Internet content is advertising-supported.
So, a company that became huge and rich from advertising and trying to "judge" us based on our clicks is now acting like They don't do it? Unless you are actually told about stuff like this then it is safe to say that Google is no better. I mean, come on, look at all the tracking cookies and stuff it uses, and you have to search for a way to disable them, and how many people will do that? That is like me being a bank robber, and then telling others to not rob banks and also tell some banks that ONLY if they talk to me ahead of time, I will not rob from them.
I tell you what Google, how about you stop using them yourself before you act like you are a huge activist behind getting rid of them.
Google isn't saying that cookies are bad. They are saying some people don't like or want them, and providing a tool to block them if desired. There's no holier-than-thou going on here.
Not to mention that it can be used to prevent access to sites. I've been on sites that block access if you use Adblock or NoScript. Not sure how they recognize it(because I never tried to look), but they do
Objectively, if I'm funding my site with advertising and you block it, why should you be allowed to access my content?
That particular case was about ten years ago, so it would not have been put onto the internet, but there are plenty of other examples if you google for "airplane interference", for example this one. (scroll down to "some anecdotes")
Interesting, but I was hoping something with actual data as opposed to word-of-mouth stories?
I'm sorry, but this was an actual fact. A full investigation confirmed it, and the effect was reproduced afterwards. It was reported in our company's safety magazine. The CD player did cause fuel indications to go to zero.
Are there any links to the investigation? I'm not doubting you, I'm just genuinely curious to read about it.
Why do you think your book can bring down the plane during take off or landing, but not while cruising? Simples - it can't.
The main issue is that most accidents happen at takeoff or landing, and the faster people react and do the right thing, the more lives saved. Taking stuff that can fly around the cabin away from people and putting it in the seatback pocket reduces the risk of a book putting someone's eye out if it flies across the cabin later. Forcing you out of your earplugs means that they have a better chance of getting your attention if something goes wrong.
Do you see the problem with what you're saying? A Kindle is no more dangerous than a book when flying around the cabin. Less dangerous than a hardback, even. I see people, especially on international flights, using earplugs all the time. That's no more dangerous than headphones.
The problem is that these explanations make no sense when their analog equivalents are permitted without a blink of the eye.
There are many possible reasons why electronics of various types should be turned off, most of the covered by the discussion here. However, most importantly, THEY SHOULD BE TURNED OFF BECAUSE THE RULE IS TO TURN THEM OFF. That's right, I'm advocating obeying the rule just because there is a rule. Sounds like I'm some kind of wuss, huh?
We like to think that we are a nation of laws, not men (read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law or here http://robertdfeinman.com/society/men_not_laws.html. A fundamental premise of this is that everyone is supposed to obey the law. I'm sure everyone can cite examples where this is not so (police giving other police a pass for infractions, etc.) but in general it is a very useful and egalitarian way to order society. We order society so that society is possible. Without order there would be chaos. One way to order society is to have multiple classes of people - you know, the nobles and the peasants. There are some who feel that this is the rightful order of things. Others don't. In the United States, one of the basic premises of our society is that everyone follows the rules. Sure, we know its not always true. But the more we pursue the ideal, the greater the chance that we will come close to it.
I get aggravated every time I see someone flaunt their disrespect for the law, such as when driving in traffic. We've all seen someone cut to the head of a line, etc. Why do we get angry? Well, its not fair, for one thing. For another, most of us recognize that its extremely easy to break the law and we probably wouldn't get "caught" (i.e., punished by some enforcer of the law), but we obey it anyway. We are frustrated with those don't, in part because most of us are smart enough to realize that if we all disregarded those laws, we would have chaos. The rule breaking only works if a very few people do it. So those few people have anointed themselves as somehow being above the rest of us. Nothing is more sure to tick a person off then another person placing themselves above that first person, especially in a society that believes it is egalitarian.
So think about it the next time you are breaking a rule, probably because you think you know it is a harmless infraction. Who are you ticking off with your self-importance? How much are you encouraging others to also choose to bend/break a rule, perhaps one more important? How much are you contributing to disorder and chaos?
Most importantly, how much are you contributing to the kind of thinking exhibited by those like Ms. Huffington who obviously think that "rules are for the little people"?
Many horrible, horrible things have been done by people who were following rules. I understand your argument and to some point even agree with much of what you're saying. Reasonable men must follow reasonable rules. The challenge is when the rules seem unreasonable, and no rational explanation can be provided.
What does this strawman about Twitter outrage have to do with my wanting to read an eBook during takeoff and landing? Sitting and staring at the chair in front of me is boring, my book is interesting. My Nook even has an airplane mode. Why should I spend 20 minutes of the flight doing nothing instead of reading quietly?
THIS
Where is the study that shows using electronics during takeoff or landing decreases situational awareness or reaction times more than reading or sleeping?
I'm not saying that being alert and paying attention is beneficial. I'm saying that a blanket ban on personal electronics for that reason is a bunch of crap. A ban on headphones during takeoff or landing is reasonable. A ban on an eBook with no wifi or cell capability is bullshit.
Probably because flight attendants have a hard enough time getting passengers to turn off electronics, so forbidding people to read would probably just really piss everyone off. Also, and this applies to me personally, probably not for everyone, but when I read a book I am still a litle bit attentive to what is going on around me, but put me infront of an electronic device, and I'm in my own little universe, isolated from the outside world.
Reading has been allowed since before personal electronics were even possible. Heck, you could read a book with a lit cigarette during takeoff and landing for decades. The electronics ban is simply a leftover from interference problems that ceased to exist decades ago.
Don't confuse this. Electronics are banned on take off and landing for different reasons, not just for interference. Electronics are banned for radio interference, because that is the easy explanation, but one of the multiple reasons is passenger attention. Take off and landing are, statistically, the most dangerous times, where all passengers are required to be attentive to what goes on. When you take off at night and they dim the cabin lights, some people say that it is for electrical considerations, but it also gets your eyes used to the outside light in case you need to evacuate. Airplanes and procedures are carefully planned so that you can evacuate quickly in case of an emergency, and people being distracted form electronics isn't really a good idea.
Yeah, I pay much more attention when reading paper material instead of my eReader, which must remain off until 10,000 feet for some reason known to no man. Next myth, please.
http://www.amazon.com/APPLE-iPHONE-3GS-REPAIR-TOOLS/dp/B004B21E12
If that's not the right one, Google "screwdriver" with your make / model of Apple device.
It isn't the right one, because the screw head is using a patented design.
Pardon, I hadn't read that it was an expired patent. But still, wrong tool kit in the link.
http://www.amazon.com/APPLE-iPHONE-3GS-REPAIR-TOOLS/dp/B004B21E12
If that's not the right one, Google "screwdriver" with your make / model of Apple device.
It isn't the right one, because the screw head is using a patented design.