I think there is no MC requirement already for this type of license, right?
Yeah, but a Technician license only gives you access to the 2 Meter(VHF) and 70cm(UHF) bands. You have to be able to slap a stupid paddle arbitrarily fast enough to be deemed worthy to use the 6 Meter(HF) band. It's pretty lame, in my opinion. Like making drivers pass a test using stick-shift before letting them drive on the interstate highways, regardless of whether their car is manual or automatic transmission. It's a silly hold-over from the olden days. The world is no longer so disconnected that one would really ever NEED to send a carrier-wave message.
In Melbourne Australia I hear more Mandarin than English on most days that I don't watch the TV. Its kind of like when I call a power company I invested in years ago in Florida, I can't get the info I need unless I speak Spanish.
All that means is that there are a lot of Mandarinand Spanish speakers in those areas, not that people are learning Mandarin and Spanish. There's quite a difference between emigration of native speakers and local adoption of foreign languages.
Your argument that Mandarin won't become a major language is much the same as how the French felt 80 years ago about English as language for treaties.
French and English aren't different enough to make such a shift difficult. You can type french words on an english keyboard and vice-versa, for the most part. Not so with Chinese. Chinese just has too many barriers to adoption.
For that matter who would manufacture our soldiers' uniforms?
Uniforms are all manufactured domestically. Mostly by textile companies in the south that would be out of business otherwise. Some of the stuff (web gear, as I recall) is made by disabled folks. I have a web belt manufactured by "Arkansas Industries for the Blind", for example.
barring some catastrophic event, mandarin will probably be a 'common' language in 100 years.
Fat chance. A language doesn't become a "lingua franca" just because a lot of people speak it. It also has to have a fairly shallow learning curve, at least for beginners. English is easy to learn to speak well enough to be understood. English is a good common language. Chinese (Mandarin or otherwise) is very difficult to speak at all, much less well enough to be understood. Furthermore, not even native speakers can count on being able to understand spoken Chinese if the speaker's dialect (and there are dozens of dialects of Mandarin) is unfamiliar. The common practice when dialects prevent verbal communication is to fall back on the written form, which is fine if you're Chinese, but totally impractical if you're (say) a Bulgarian businessman negotiating a contract. You're saying that everyone is going to learn both spoken and written Chinese in 100 years just because there are a lot of Chinese people? Think again, bat-man. More likely, the Chinese will be learning English.
These units probably were preloaded with the 2313 atmel firmware to glitch into the cards.
This means the units were pre-loaded with software with intent to glitch a card to do the deed.
But they weren't preloaded with the glitching firmware-- that's what made them "gray-market" rather than outright illegal. No one sells pre-programmed glitchers. They sell them unprogrammed and then "make available" the firmware. This dodge doesn't do as much for the sellers as they'd hoped, but in the end it happens to pretty well cover the buyer because purchasing a card-programmer is no longer solid prima facie evidence of intent.
Filing a lawsuit (at least, filing a lawsuit with merit) is not a punitive action.
But the whole crux of the matter is the "lawsuit with merit" aspect then, isn't it. Mass-mailing threats of legal action with only the weakest of circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing is a little too close to barratry for comfort.
1) I have an office, not a cubicle. You'd have to pick the lock to get into it.
hah. It always amazes me that people put any trust at all in physical security in the form of locked doors. Chances are your office is one of many opened by a floor/suite master key. So really, the only people who have access to your office are you, your supervisor(s), the cleaning/maintenance crew, the locksmith who maintains your key system, or anyone who knows any of the preceding people and/or otherwise has access to their keys.
Aditionally, don't forget that your telecom people control your extension number, so add them as well to the list of people who can appear to be you calling in from your office on your phone.
1) I have an office, not a cubicle. You'd have to pick the lock to get into it.
hah. It always amazes me that people put any trust at all in physical security in the form of locked doors. Chances are your office is one of many opened by a floor/suite master key. So really, the only people who have access to your office are you, your supervisor(s), the cleaning/maintenance crew, the locksmith who maintains your key system, or anyone who knows any of the preceding people and/or otherwise has access to their keys.
Also, didn't we have an article here on/. about how one can deduce the master key from a sub-key via "file-and-error"? Count those people in too.
As to employee ID#, I can't really comment as I know nothing about your company.
Since they generally have few useful skills, these people will generally be more politically adept than the poor slob who is actually technically competent and happens to be a person who still hasn't topped out against the Peter Principle.
Ah, this leads to the Dilbert Principle, which is (perversely) even worse than the Peter Principle. Technically adept people don't get promoted because they're so good at doing the actual work. Subsequently, people who are "less adept", so to speak, are promoted instead because there's no great loss to productivity at the bottom and maybe they'll be better at managing. Under the Dilbert Principle, people are not only promoted beyond their level of competence, but those chosen for promotion are selected because they're the least useful.
Simply getting rid of the unconstitutional laws will not help for long, as Congress will simply pass them again in a forms.
Pfff! That logic makes as much sense as a kid who says "why should I take a bath when I'm just going to get dirty again tomorrow?" The point is, we keep giving the kid a bath whenever he gets too dirty; we don't throw the kid out and start over. Remember this quote: "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Perhaps you should give specific examples of why you think that it is "garbage", so that I can reinterpret them in a new light.
With pleasure. Here's a quick sampling of just the few things that caught my eye upon cursory examination:
ARTICLE I. POWERS of the CITIZENS
Yargh....One attribute that makes the CURRENT constitution such an amazing document is that it says "these specific things the government may do, all else is a power of the citizenry". This new constitution starts off enumerating citizen powers, which implies that the power is granted by government to the people, rather than the other way around. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves over this.
(a) All rights of ownership shall be reserved for the nation and its citizens;
The very idea that the nation and the citizens are separate entities is another notion that would have Jefferson et al rotating in their caskets. No matter how much happy-gas populist democracy crap the rest of the document spouts, there's still going to be that little dichotomy there, and those elected will eventually see themselves as "the nation". And giving "the nation" the right to own property, but giving other collective groups no such rights? Yeah, sounds like eventually "the nation" is going to own everything, being that it's the most powerful entity that can own anything.
By innate nature, however, entrepreneurship often involves authoritarian management.
This bit of editorial commentary does NOT belong in the constitution. It's inflammatory rhetoric meant to establish the premise that a business being in charge of its business inevitably leads to worker exploitation -(cough)MarxistClaptrap(cough) - but also that it's somehow the job of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT rather than that of the CITIZENS THEMSELVES to see to it that their working conditions suit their needs.
XI. Department for ADVANCING the STATUS of CITIZENS (former Department of
Health and Human Services, Department of Education, and other related organizations)
Part of what's wrong with the CURRENT system is the notion that it is in any way the business of the GOVERNMENT to see to the ADVANCEMENT of the STATUS of CITIZENS. It's the job of the citizens themselves to see to it that they advance.
The National Societal-Clone Prison System shall be a societal-simulated complex comprised of impenetrable facilities protected by security walls, fences, guards, weapons, electronic devices, and other equipment and personnel necessary to maintain security, to prevent escape of prisoners, and to ensure integrity of system.
Whoa! A perfect simulation of free society, with everything but the freedom? This guy's NUTS! What makes prison different from the outside world isn't just the surface accoutrements--it's the lack of freedom. A prison that looks like (for example) a simulated small Midwestern town inside, only with GUARDS armed with WEAPONS, surrounded by a BARBED WIRE FENCE may as well be a concrete building with bars on the windows, 'cause if you can't choose what to do or where to go, it's prison. This "Societal-Clone" crap is a perfect description of exactly what the Siberean Gulags were like in the Soviet Union. Just because you pretend it's like a regular city doesn't change the fact that people can't quit their jobs, go vacation at the Grand Canyon, or even hang out with their family and friends. He's a crackpot if he thinks the structure is what's bad about prison.
This is slashdot. I base my opinions of others on whatever information is available, even if it is all just superficial stuff. Stuff like an apparent belief in:
More importantly, what do you have against this[www.newusconstitution.org]?
It's sophomoric pablum. Simplistic populist analysis of a complex system. Suggested solution to problems of abuse of the current constitution? Expungement of unconstitutional laws? No! Throw it all out! Set up a crappy NEW constitution that seems more interested in making certain entities pay more money to the government than it does in protecting natural human rights! It's just Marxism in a new suit. It's hard to take anyone who even links to such garbage seriously.
Either this judge is completely daft our he's never tried to put a PDA through a credit-card reader
I think what Judge Jensen is trying to say is that the patent isn't about the size of the object. Patents are about function. He essentially kiccked it back down to the lower court and told the lower court judge "you have to find a functional reason to reject this patent suit, doofus"
If this patent is not about size, than probably every computer infringes this patent.
Even though you can debate about wether this patent should have been granted, I think the law made a mistake here.
I think the judge was trying to correct a mistake here by throwing it back to the lower court and saying relative size, particularly when you can't patent something based on size alone, is not a legitimate reason to rule "no infringement". Essentially, the judge was ruling that the previous judge was off his rocker law-wise and that, while the patent my be totally inapplicable to a Palm device, the size is not a legally acceptable factor to base such a ruling on. Remember, the judge isn't saying "patent is good; palm must pay morons $$$". He's saying "previous judge moron; send back for legally acceptable judgement".
It was a joke. Next time, read the rest of the thread before replying.
Hmmmm...not a very good joke. People take you seriously if it's not clear you're trying to be funny. Then again, no rational person who's ever followed the link in your sig (which IS a fucking joke) would ever take you seriously...
Just to point out that most people with phone-service in "the boondocks" are rural, and most of those people are involved with providing the rest of us leeches with our food. If they all move away from "the boondocks", we starve.
So you're saying that, because they grow our food, they deserve subsidized phone service? You gotta be fucking kidding.
Re:Does anyone see IP issues inthe future?
on
Corel Goes Private
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Good question. Here's a partial answer: a list of software companies owned by Vector.
Vector doesn't OWN those companies, they're in its PORTFOLIO. That means they own PART of those companies, i.e. they are investors. Now, they may or may not have a controlling interest, but OWN? No.
Wrong. This is not a subpoena, this is a lawsuit naming individuals. Once the lawsuit is submitted, then the judge subpoenas the ISPs for the individuals which the RIAA wants to sue.
That makes no sense, man. First you say the lawsuit names individuals, but then say the subpoena for the individuals' identities comes from the judge after the lawsuit is submitted? None of that is the point here, however. The point is that the DMCA allows copyright holders to get subpoenas from a clerk rather than a judge. Quoting the Dallas Bar Association web site: "...the subpoena provision of the DMCA allows a third party, such as a copyright owner, to acquire the identity of the subscriber without filing a lawsuit."
Please tell me that you are a girl. Guys who kick other guys in the nuts are not playing with a full deck themselves.
Why? Because it's not "fair fighting"? And how is (for example) three eighth graders beating the crap out of a sixth grader fair to begin with. The family jewels are fair game, man. ANYTHING is fair game, including the eyes. Fair fight my ass. You can't demand rules when you're the agressor and your target has no choice whether to fight or not.
Copyright is law. Subpoenas, which are ordered by the court, also happens to be law. Therefore we can conclude, the court, has lawfully requested on behalf of the RIAA, the information requested in the form of a subpoena.
Are you saying the U.S. court system has no law enforcement capabilities? I would hope not.
No, the problem is that the RIAA can get a rubber stamped subpoena that essentially reads "a gaggle of users on verizon DSL, whose names we'll figure out later, must show up in court". It's essentially a blank form. While the DMCA "allows" this to happen, it's still a violation of due process. Laws are perfectly capable of being "illegal" in the sense that they are unconstitutional. Some laws are more powerfull than others; the right to due process of law is one of those.
You are living in the 90's. DC-DC conversion is easier these days for voltages less than tens of kV. It is rapidly becoming practical even for the highest voltages. Power electronics are changing everything.
Yeah, I was mostly speaking in a historical sense, i.e. "why do we have AC power?"
it's a special case of the right to the pursuit of happiness
Bullcrap. There may, perhaps, be a right to pursue profit, but right to profit in itself? No way. If technology renders one's previous business model unprofitable, one has no right to legislate that the technology be banned, rationed, or controlled to ensure their continued prosperity. Buggy whip makers? Wig powderers? Night-soil collectors? What about their "right to profit", eh? There's a quote from Heinlein that covers this-- I let someone else produce it.
In the above "idealistic copying world" example above, noone could profit! There would be no object scarcity, therefore (almost) no intrinsic value to *ANYTHING*, let alone "strictly informational things."
Sigh... it's been promised before, it's called communism, and has cost over a hundred million lives, not counting war deaths. It doesn't work and never will.
Dumbass, you totally missed the fucking POINT. He wasn't describing communism. Communism is collectivism. He's describing a world where "collecting" (AKA "stealing") would no longer even be worth the effort because any physical object could be created at will on demand, a la ST:TNG replicator.
Electronics companies would be interested in selling a device that made it easy for anyone to use a HAM frequency.
Huh? You mean electronics companies like Kenwood, Icom, or Yaesu? Anyone can already buy a ham band transceiver fairly cheaply, and they're already easy to use. I don't understand your point.
Hams aren't allowed to talk about business on the air...
Bullcrap. You can talk about business all you want. You can even (as mentioned above) request services over the air, through a phone patch. What you can't do is use the ham bands for business purposes, e.g. dispatching cabs, towtrucks, and delivery drivers. The "no business" rule is to make businesses stick to using the commercial bands that are there for exactly that purpose. It's not censorship. If you want to talk to your employees at work via radio, buy commercial band radios!
...counters will make a real hole in the casino's books. Depending on the rules used and bet spread allowed, a top counter can have anything up to a 3% advantage on the house. This compares to a house advantage of typically around 1% over a non counter who at least knows and follows basic strategy.
That's a crap argument. It only takes three bonehead gamblers to make up for one counter's winnings. Skilled counters are rare enough (as are larger-stakes, small deck tables, for that matter) that the counters' take don't amount to diddly squat compared to the cash the schmoes are dropping, and this is just at the blackjack tables-- the REAL money comes from gaming machines anyway. Casino management just can't stand the thought of anyone taking money based on skill: it's got to be a gamble, all the time, in the house's favor.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but a Technician license only gives you access to the 2 Meter(VHF) and 70cm(UHF) bands. You have to be able to slap a stupid paddle arbitrarily fast enough to be deemed worthy to use the 6 Meter(HF) band. It's pretty lame, in my opinion. Like making drivers pass a test using stick-shift before letting them drive on the interstate highways, regardless of whether their car is manual or automatic transmission. It's a silly hold-over from the olden days. The world is no longer so disconnected that one would really ever NEED to send a carrier-wave message.
All that means is that there are a lot of Mandarinand Spanish speakers in those areas, not that people are learning Mandarin and Spanish. There's quite a difference between emigration of native speakers and local adoption of foreign languages.
Your argument that Mandarin won't become a major language is much the same as how the French felt 80 years ago about English as language for treaties.
French and English aren't different enough to make such a shift difficult. You can type french words on an english keyboard and vice-versa, for the most part. Not so with Chinese. Chinese just has too many barriers to adoption.
Uniforms are all manufactured domestically. Mostly by textile companies in the south that would be out of business otherwise. Some of the stuff (web gear, as I recall) is made by disabled folks. I have a web belt manufactured by "Arkansas Industries for the Blind", for example.
Fat chance. A language doesn't become a "lingua franca" just because a lot of people speak it. It also has to have a fairly shallow learning curve, at least for beginners. English is easy to learn to speak well enough to be understood. English is a good common language. Chinese (Mandarin or otherwise) is very difficult to speak at all, much less well enough to be understood. Furthermore, not even native speakers can count on being able to understand spoken Chinese if the speaker's dialect (and there are dozens of dialects of Mandarin) is unfamiliar. The common practice when dialects prevent verbal communication is to fall back on the written form, which is fine if you're Chinese, but totally impractical if you're (say) a Bulgarian businessman negotiating a contract. You're saying that everyone is going to learn both spoken and written Chinese in 100 years just because there are a lot of Chinese people? Think again, bat-man. More likely, the Chinese will be learning English.
This means the units were pre-loaded with software with intent to glitch a card to do the deed.
But they weren't preloaded with the glitching firmware-- that's what made them "gray-market" rather than outright illegal. No one sells pre-programmed glitchers. They sell them unprogrammed and then "make available" the firmware. This dodge doesn't do as much for the sellers as they'd hoped, but in the end it happens to pretty well cover the buyer because purchasing a card-programmer is no longer solid prima facie evidence of intent.
But the whole crux of the matter is the "lawsuit with merit" aspect then, isn't it. Mass-mailing threats of legal action with only the weakest of circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing is a little too close to barratry for comfort.
hah. It always amazes me that people put any trust at all in physical security in the form of locked doors. Chances are your office is one of many opened by a floor/suite master key. So really, the only people who have access to your office are you, your supervisor(s), the cleaning/maintenance crew, the locksmith who maintains your key system, or anyone who knows any of the preceding people and/or otherwise has access to their keys.
Aditionally, don't forget that your telecom people control your extension number, so add them as well to the list of people who can appear to be you calling in from your office on your phone.
hah. It always amazes me that people put any trust at all in physical security in the form of locked doors. Chances are your office is one of many opened by a floor/suite master key. So really, the only people who have access to your office are you, your supervisor(s), the cleaning/maintenance crew, the locksmith who maintains your key system, or anyone who knows any of the preceding people and/or otherwise has access to their keys.
Also, didn't we have an article here on /. about how one can deduce the master key from a sub-key via "file-and-error"? Count those people in too.
As to employee ID#, I can't really comment as I know nothing about your company.
Ah, this leads to the Dilbert Principle, which is (perversely) even worse than the Peter Principle. Technically adept people don't get promoted because they're so good at doing the actual work. Subsequently, people who are "less adept", so to speak, are promoted instead because there's no great loss to productivity at the bottom and maybe they'll be better at managing. Under the Dilbert Principle, people are not only promoted beyond their level of competence, but those chosen for promotion are selected because they're the least useful.
Pfff! That logic makes as much sense as a kid who says "why should I take a bath when I'm just going to get dirty again tomorrow?" The point is, we keep giving the kid a bath whenever he gets too dirty; we don't throw the kid out and start over. Remember this quote: "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Perhaps you should give specific examples of why you think that it is "garbage", so that I can reinterpret them in a new light.
With pleasure. Here's a quick sampling of just the few things that caught my eye upon cursory examination:
ARTICLE I. POWERS of the CITIZENS
Yargh....One attribute that makes the CURRENT constitution such an amazing document is that it says "these specific things the government may do, all else is a power of the citizenry". This new constitution starts off enumerating citizen powers, which implies that the power is granted by government to the people, rather than the other way around. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves over this.
(a) All rights of ownership shall be reserved for the nation and its citizens;
The very idea that the nation and the citizens are separate entities is another notion that would have Jefferson et al rotating in their caskets. No matter how much happy-gas populist democracy crap the rest of the document spouts, there's still going to be that little dichotomy there, and those elected will eventually see themselves as "the nation". And giving "the nation" the right to own property, but giving other collective groups no such rights? Yeah, sounds like eventually "the nation" is going to own everything, being that it's the most powerful entity that can own anything.
By innate nature, however, entrepreneurship often involves authoritarian management.
This bit of editorial commentary does NOT belong in the constitution. It's inflammatory rhetoric meant to establish the premise that a business being in charge of its business inevitably leads to worker exploitation -(cough)MarxistClaptrap(cough) - but also that it's somehow the job of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT rather than that of the CITIZENS THEMSELVES to see to it that their working conditions suit their needs.
XI. Department for ADVANCING the STATUS of CITIZENS (former Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, and other related organizations)
Part of what's wrong with the CURRENT system is the notion that it is in any way the business of the GOVERNMENT to see to the ADVANCEMENT of the STATUS of CITIZENS. It's the job of the citizens themselves to see to it that they advance.
The National Societal-Clone Prison System shall be a societal-simulated complex comprised of impenetrable facilities protected by security walls, fences, guards, weapons, electronic devices, and other equipment and personnel necessary to maintain security, to prevent escape of prisoners, and to ensure integrity of system.
Whoa! A perfect simulation of free society, with everything but the freedom? This guy's NUTS! What makes prison different from the outside world isn't just the surface accoutrements--it's the lack of freedom. A prison that looks like (for example) a simulated small Midwestern town inside, only with GUARDS armed with WEAPONS, surrounded by a BARBED WIRE FENCE may as well be a concrete building with bars on the windows, 'cause if you can't choose what to do or where to go, it's prison. This "Societal-Clone" crap is a perfect description of exactly what the Siberean Gulags were like in the Soviet Union. Just because you pretend it's like a regular city doesn't change the fact that people can't quit their jobs, go vacation at the Grand Canyon, or even hang out with their family and friends. He's a crackpot if he thinks the structure is what's bad about prison.
In short, the
This is slashdot. I base my opinions of others on whatever information is available, even if it is all just superficial stuff. Stuff like an apparent belief in:
More importantly, what do you have against this[www.newusconstitution.org]?
It's sophomoric pablum. Simplistic populist analysis of a complex system. Suggested solution to problems of abuse of the current constitution? Expungement of unconstitutional laws? No! Throw it all out! Set up a crappy NEW constitution that seems more interested in making certain entities pay more money to the government than it does in protecting natural human rights! It's just Marxism in a new suit. It's hard to take anyone who even links to such garbage seriously.
I think what Judge Jensen is trying to say is that the patent isn't about the size of the object. Patents are about function. He essentially kiccked it back down to the lower court and told the lower court judge "you have to find a functional reason to reject this patent suit, doofus"
I think the judge was trying to correct a mistake here by throwing it back to the lower court and saying relative size, particularly when you can't patent something based on size alone, is not a legitimate reason to rule "no infringement". Essentially, the judge was ruling that the previous judge was off his rocker law-wise and that, while the patent my be totally inapplicable to a Palm device, the size is not a legally acceptable factor to base such a ruling on. Remember, the judge isn't saying "patent is good; palm must pay morons $$$". He's saying "previous judge moron; send back for legally acceptable judgement".
Yeah, I think everyone is reading the point of the judgement wrong here. The ruling is probably more of along the lines of a judge saying:
"The size issue is not a reason this patent infringement claim should be rejected...(cough)Dedicated-vs-GeneralPurpose design(cough)."
Hmmmm...not a very good joke. People take you seriously if it's not clear you're trying to be funny. Then again, no rational person who's ever followed the link in your sig (which IS a fucking joke) would ever take you seriously...
So you're saying that, because they grow our food, they deserve subsidized phone service? You gotta be fucking kidding.
Vector doesn't OWN those companies, they're in its PORTFOLIO. That means they own PART of those companies, i.e. they are investors. Now, they may or may not have a controlling interest, but OWN? No.
That makes no sense, man. First you say the lawsuit names individuals, but then say the subpoena for the individuals' identities comes from the judge after the lawsuit is submitted? None of that is the point here, however. The point is that the DMCA allows copyright holders to get subpoenas from a clerk rather than a judge. Quoting the Dallas Bar Association web site: "...the subpoena provision of the DMCA allows a third party, such as a copyright owner, to acquire the identity of the subscriber without filing a lawsuit."
Why? Because it's not "fair fighting"? And how is (for example) three eighth graders beating the crap out of a sixth grader fair to begin with. The family jewels are fair game, man. ANYTHING is fair game, including the eyes. Fair fight my ass. You can't demand rules when you're the agressor and your target has no choice whether to fight or not.
No, the problem is that the RIAA can get a rubber stamped subpoena that essentially reads "a gaggle of users on verizon DSL, whose names we'll figure out later, must show up in court". It's essentially a blank form. While the DMCA "allows" this to happen, it's still a violation of due process. Laws are perfectly capable of being "illegal" in the sense that they are unconstitutional. Some laws are more powerfull than others; the right to due process of law is one of those.
Yeah, I was mostly speaking in a historical sense, i.e. "why do we have AC power?"
Bullcrap. There may, perhaps, be a right to pursue profit, but right to profit in itself? No way. If technology renders one's previous business model unprofitable, one has no right to legislate that the technology be banned, rationed, or controlled to ensure their continued prosperity. Buggy whip makers? Wig powderers? Night-soil collectors? What about their "right to profit", eh? There's a quote from Heinlein that covers this-- I let someone else produce it.
In the above "idealistic copying world" example above, noone could profit! There would be no object scarcity, therefore (almost) no intrinsic value to *ANYTHING*, let alone "strictly informational things."
Sigh... it's been promised before, it's called communism, and has cost over a hundred million lives, not counting war deaths. It doesn't work and never will.
Dumbass, you totally missed the fucking POINT. He wasn't describing communism. Communism is collectivism. He's describing a world where "collecting" (AKA "stealing") would no longer even be worth the effort because any physical object could be created at will on demand, a la ST:TNG replicator.
Huh? You mean electronics companies like Kenwood, Icom, or Yaesu? Anyone can already buy a ham band transceiver fairly cheaply, and they're already easy to use. I don't understand your point.
Bullcrap. You can talk about business all you want. You can even (as mentioned above) request services over the air, through a phone patch. What you can't do is use the ham bands for business purposes, e.g. dispatching cabs, towtrucks, and delivery drivers. The "no business" rule is to make businesses stick to using the commercial bands that are there for exactly that purpose. It's not censorship. If you want to talk to your employees at work via radio, buy commercial band radios!
That's a crap argument. It only takes three bonehead gamblers to make up for one counter's winnings. Skilled counters are rare enough (as are larger-stakes, small deck tables, for that matter) that the counters' take don't amount to diddly squat compared to the cash the schmoes are dropping, and this is just at the blackjack tables-- the REAL money comes from gaming machines anyway. Casino management just can't stand the thought of anyone taking money based on skill: it's got to be a gamble, all the time, in the house's favor.