While those things are possible, they are far from easy. Your garden variety script kiddie can't do that. Even far more skilled types would have to find a way to get malware onto your machine first, and have it go unnoticed. Realisticly, only governments can pull off these attacks. While that means https isn't perfect, it's far better to be vulnerable to a few than vulnerable to everyone.
Sure, they were more expensive in the past, but that's not relavent now unless you have a time machine. Same as far as dimmability, most today are dimmable. I'm sure early adopters paid a lot and were sometimes disappointed, but that goes for any new technology.
I remember in college in the mid-1990s, our dorm switched to early CFLs for our desk lamps. They were $30 apiece (which we'd have to pay for if we broke one), were odd-shaped so they fit the lamps poorly, and they had far more mercury in them than today's CFLs. I don't judge today's CFLs based on those.
You only answered half of the previous poster's question.
Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet. Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.
You addressed the 2nd amendment part, but don't explain the former. How is it that the 2nd amendment perfect only because its "old", and at the same time the 1934 act is flawed only because its old (according to you)?
There will be no successful class actions. And if anyone buys one and it refuses to work, all they have to do is return it for a full refund, same as anything else.
So, are they offering full refunds to people who own one and live within the newly-banned area?
Yes... the EFF is responsible for how well (or poorly) every news site out there reports this story./s
Like I said, refusing to update means you no longer get any bug fixes or useful feature additions. You could refuse the PS3 update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but you'd then be unable to play any future games or Blu-Ray movies, and would be unable to access PSN. That's exactly the kind of thing the EFF is talking about, you buy something because it has features X, Y, and Z, then the manufacturer pushes an update that removes feature X, and if you refuse the update, features Y and Z are gimped. If you can in fact disable the no-fly list, this argument is weak in DJI's case, but that doesn't change the fact that manufacturers in general can remove features after purchase.
I'm still at a loss as to why DJI 1) didn't have the White House grounds amongst it's no-fly zones in the first place, and 2) why they decided to use a ridiculous 20 mile radius when they added it.
It doesn't just add the white house... it adds a 20 miles radius around the white house, which isn't all restricted airspace.
You keep mentioning a switch to turn off no-fly zones. Are you certain of that? Not a single article I've read on this subject mentions there being a switch, and having one completely defeats the purpose of having no-fly zones to begin with.
How did the EFF "lie"? They gave a few examples (and I'm sure you can find many, many others) of manufacturers removing or gimping features after purchase via firmware updates. Is DJI giving refunds to people who live within the new no-fly zone and now just own a very expensive paper weight? No.
If you forgo this update, you don't get any further bug fixes, added features etc. Just like with the PS3... you could refuse the update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but that meant not getting any future updates, not being able to play future games, and not being able to watch future BluRay movies.
Rather than arguing about how much if any effect human garbage has on hot springs, how about teaching your son to NOT THROW GARBAGE AND STUFF INTO THE BEAUTIFUL NATURAL LANDMARK?!?!?
The librarian analogy is false. It's already illegal to give pornography to a minor, a new funding bill wouldn't change that.
Law enforcement has already shown a propensity to do questionable things regarding cellphones. See Stingray and their attempts to search phones without warrants that led to the recent Supreme Court case. Are there existing laws that make it illegal for law enforcement to brick a phone in California? This one just doesn't say. Give them an inch they'll take a mile.
What of others? Can a carrier brick your phone for late payment? Can they brick your phone if you refuse onerous changes to their contract terms mid-contract? If not, what penalties are there for doing so? If you don't think carriers wouldn't screw people over like that, see this article:
What phones from a decade ago could be remotely bricked? I know some recent phones have this capability, but I've never heard of this sort of thing prior to maybe a year ago.
What of the EFF's objections (which are basically what I've been saying)?
The usual/. refrain of correlation is not causation definately applies here. Mississippi had low test scores long before broadband Internet came along.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
"Microsoft is changing how Do Not Track (DNT) is implemented in future versions of our browsers"
In fact, the only mentions of IE in TFA are where they are discussing the previous behavior.
Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil invented spread-spectrum communications in 1942. It's used in WiFi, but I wouldn't call that "inventing WiFi".
While those things are possible, they are far from easy. Your garden variety script kiddie can't do that. Even far more skilled types would have to find a way to get malware onto your machine first, and have it go unnoticed. Realisticly, only governments can pull off these attacks. While that means https isn't perfect, it's far better to be vulnerable to a few than vulnerable to everyone.
Sure, they were more expensive in the past, but that's not relavent now unless you have a time machine. Same as far as dimmability, most today are dimmable. I'm sure early adopters paid a lot and were sometimes disappointed, but that goes for any new technology.
I remember in college in the mid-1990s, our dorm switched to early CFLs for our desk lamps. They were $30 apiece (which we'd have to pay for if we broke one), were odd-shaped so they fit the lamps poorly, and they had far more mercury in them than today's CFLs. I don't judge today's CFLs based on those.
Either way, the OP's claim that they cost $40 is nonsense. As is sexconker's claim that they aren't dimmable.
Here's a 1-pack of 800 lumen for under $10:
http://www.amazon.com/Philips-...
Obviously 1600 lumens costs more, but they have some Philips 1600 lumens LED bulbs for around $20, which is still way less than the $40 OP said.
They weren't actually stories of people doing those stupid things, the maker (Palcohol) suggested doing those things on the website:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4...
$40???? Amazon has name brand, dimmable LED bulbs for under $10.
You only answered half of the previous poster's question.
Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.
Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.
You addressed the 2nd amendment part, but don't explain the former. How is it that the 2nd amendment perfect only because its "old", and at the same time the 1934 act is flawed only because its old (according to you)?
According to Wikipedia, it would take 2 million years for any comets perturbed by this encounter to get to the inner solar system.
Scholz's Star
No DRM means no Netflix app, no Hulu app, no Amazon app, etc, etc, etc.
There will be no successful class actions. And if anyone buys one and it refuses to work, all they have to do is return it for a full refund, same as anything else.
So, are they offering full refunds to people who own one and live within the newly-banned area?
Yes... the EFF is responsible for how well (or poorly) every news site out there reports this story. /s
Like I said, refusing to update means you no longer get any bug fixes or useful feature additions. You could refuse the PS3 update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but you'd then be unable to play any future games or Blu-Ray movies, and would be unable to access PSN. That's exactly the kind of thing the EFF is talking about, you buy something because it has features X, Y, and Z, then the manufacturer pushes an update that removes feature X, and if you refuse the update, features Y and Z are gimped. If you can in fact disable the no-fly list, this argument is weak in DJI's case, but that doesn't change the fact that manufacturers in general can remove features after purchase.
I'm still at a loss as to why DJI 1) didn't have the White House grounds amongst it's no-fly zones in the first place, and 2) why they decided to use a ridiculous 20 mile radius when they added it.
It doesn't just add the white house... it adds a 20 miles radius around the white house, which isn't all restricted airspace.
You keep mentioning a switch to turn off no-fly zones. Are you certain of that? Not a single article I've read on this subject mentions there being a switch, and having one completely defeats the purpose of having no-fly zones to begin with.
How did the EFF "lie"? They gave a few examples (and I'm sure you can find many, many others) of manufacturers removing or gimping features after purchase via firmware updates. Is DJI giving refunds to people who live within the new no-fly zone and now just own a very expensive paper weight? No.
You still don't get it, do you? I cannot turn off the ability to see the unblocked numbers. That has NOTHING to do with blocking my own number.
Cover your eyes I guess? How is it in any way a problem to know who's calling? Does it spoil the surprise or something?
Nothing really (assuming you don't live within restricted airspace)... personal use is still unlicensed.
That restricted air space does *not* extend 25km from the White House like DJI's arbitrary no-fly zone does.
If you forgo this update, you don't get any further bug fixes, added features etc. Just like with the PS3... you could refuse the update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but that meant not getting any future updates, not being able to play future games, and not being able to watch future BluRay movies.
You disproved your own argument...
"if they haven't blocked it"
They *can* block it if they wish to... it's not being forced on anyone (albeit how to block it isn't always easy to find).
And who is Kaiser Soze?
Rather than arguing about how much if any effect human garbage has on hot springs, how about teaching your son to NOT THROW GARBAGE AND STUFF INTO THE BEAUTIFUL NATURAL LANDMARK?!?!?
Another false analogy... how many gun locks have remote access capability?
The librarian analogy is false. It's already illegal to give pornography to a minor, a new funding bill wouldn't change that.
Law enforcement has already shown a propensity to do questionable things regarding cellphones. See Stingray and their attempts to search phones without warrants that led to the recent Supreme Court case. Are there existing laws that make it illegal for law enforcement to brick a phone in California? This one just doesn't say. Give them an inch they'll take a mile.
What of others? Can a carrier brick your phone for late payment? Can they brick your phone if you refuse onerous changes to their contract terms mid-contract? If not, what penalties are there for doing so? If you don't think carriers wouldn't screw people over like that, see this article:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
What phones from a decade ago could be remotely bricked? I know some recent phones have this capability, but I've never heard of this sort of thing prior to maybe a year ago.
What of the EFF's objections (which are basically what I've been saying)?
The usual /. refrain of correlation is not causation definately applies here. Mississippi had low test scores long before broadband Internet came along.