IIRC this product only works on broadcast TV stations, the ones you can receive anyway using rabbit ears. Well, not literally, I mean using a regular antenna, actually chopping off the ears of a rabbit and gluing them to your TV is cruel, disgusting, and isn't going to let you receive any new channels you wouldn't be able to anyway - except perhaps one or two UHF channels of the type where if you stand on one side of the room the signal kinda comes in, but move two feet to the left and then it doesn't.
Anyway, that's the deal, which makes sense because if it was any of the satellite-only channels then the operators of those channels would refuse to license their content to Dish, or maybe ask for more in subscription money, somethhing like that.
So, yeah, Myth with a cheap ATSC card can be used to do something similar. Although I've used the Myth commercial skipping feature and quite honestly it's not all it's cracked up to be, can be a PITA if it skips an "ad" that isn't an ad as it's difficult to get that part of the boradcast to play. Also the UI sucks, but you already knew that. "By Programmers for Programmers" is the motto, but I'm a programmer and I don't want to use it.
He said smaller. If Obama had engaged in no wars over the last four years, the comment presumably wouldn't have been "A zero chance of being "liberated""
Remember the guy Obama defeated the first time? That nice old person, think he's married to Betty White or something? "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
To clarify your comment: British miles are the same size. British gallons are smaller than US gallons (for some reason.) British MPG figures, therefore, are larger than US MPG figures for the same fuel efficiency rating.
iPhone maps have been around for years and have seen constant reliable use, so surely people who are complaining about it now are wrong?
SAMBA 4 most definitely has not been deployed for decades and is a virtually entirely new system. Of course, it hasn't even been released yet! (The publically downloadable versions are alphas, betas, and RCs.) I don't doubt it'll be a great system, but faulting sysadmins for anything other than using unfinished software in a production environment is absurd.
There are always edge cases, but I can see ways in which postal votes would be less accurate, and emailed votes would be more accurate.
Mail in the US is normally left in householder's unsecured mailboxes for a mailman to pick up during the day and put into the postal system. Checking the mailboxes of homes displaying "Vote {My candidate's opponent}" signs and "disappearing" the easily identified mailed votes before the mailman gets there is certainly a practical concept. You wouldn't get all the votes that way, but you'd get enough to make a difference.
Can the same be done with email? Yes, kinda, but these days there's an expectation that your email is not going to go through, and quite honestly if you don't get an acknowledgement that your ballot was delivered in a reasonable period of time, then you're going to investigate. And acknowledgements themselves are going to be suspected by the more paranoid users who will follow up with phone calls and other contact methods. If someone gets an "acknowledgement", and then calls the polling office and finds it's forged, then - whoops!
Now, you're talking tampering, but actually tampering a scan is relatively hard to do in a way that cannot be detected. Moreover, it takes time, time that would make it uneconomical for most entities to do it. If a rogue sysadmin at Google's GMail department seriously wants to f-ck with emailed ballots, they could easily drop a few thousand with a "misconfiguring" of their MTA, but it would get progressively harder to do in a way that detects votes against their favored candidate, and it would get impossibly hard to do without an army of photoshop experts to intercept, modify, and send, a few thousand ballots (enough to make a difference.)
Also bear that in mind - that the fraud would have to be from someone at Google, Yahoo, Hotmail, or AOL, to stand a serious chance of swaying the vote. A sysadmin at an ISP with a few thousand users or less is highly unlikely to be able to intercept enough votes to make any difference. For all of the faults of "big corporations", few would be in a position to secretly sway an election in this way without a whistleblower calling it, few would have employees in situations where they could sway an election without their employer finding out about it and firing them, and few would actually risk everything in order to change whether tweedledum or tweedledee actually wins.
Given the time constraints with this, I don't see any legitimate reason to criticise NJ on this. If they'd given notice last year they were going to do it, or if they weren't requiring scans of presumably unique paper documents sent to each address, then yeah, there'd be a heavy probably of mass fraud that wouldn't otherwise exist, but I just don't see it here, and Slashdot should probably tone down their hysterical summary on this.
Probably the same way they reconcile it if they get snailed mailed two ballots for the same person.
Look, it's not hard people. This is vote-by-mail with the "Mailbox to Voter Office" part of the process replaced with "scan and fax or email from home to Voter Office." There is no way to commit fraud that wasn't already possible.
OK, so you're saying, let me understand you correctly, that rather than pick a representative sample of years, say, the last 30, the sample should have included some cherry picked periods from the 1950s in order to make everything look A-OK (presumably, though, you'd be against including the prior 30 years, in case that diluted the 1950s figures that make the past look like such a hell hole?)
Here's a better idea, let's be intellectually honest, rather than cherry picking data and then having the nerve to complain the scientists who actually did the results cherry picked because they didn't include your cherry picked data.
People who are wealthy will spend more, but, you know, if I'm a billionaire, exactly how many plasma TVs can I reasonably buy before I have too many plasma TVs? Ultimately, the impact on the economy would seem to be slight.
Worse still, if every dollar I pull out of my company to pay myself is now worth, for the sake of argument 80c instead of 70c, wouldn't it stand to reason that there's more incentive for me to pull money out of my business? Perhaps even an incentive to run it into the ground - it's doing well now and can pay me a fortune, why wait - it might not always be like that?
Tax cuts to people on more ordinary salaries tends to be more effective because the number of - well, I used plasma TVs above - things bought will be massively increased, and that'll raise the economy.
The funny thing is I suspect some ultra-capitalists would agree with me, reluctantly of course. Henry Ford is famous for raising the salaries of his own employees. He knew that his own business would benefit from that, both temporarily as quality improved from motivated workers, but also in the medium to longer term as other companies would be forced to compete and raise there's, thus increasing the pool of people who could afford... Ford's vehicles.
The counter arguments tend to be these which may or may not be true, depending on how you think about it:
1. Giving more money to the rich will enable them to invest in job creation programs. My view is that the opposite is true - the money for job creation is done through businesses, always, never through their leaders. That is, if I leave my money in a business and ensure the business runs at maximum efficiency, the money is untaxed anyway.
2. If you tax people too highly, they'll continue to pay themselves well but will move the money off-shore, out of reach of any tax authorities. With respect, i think the overwhelming evidence is that this happens anyway, and in any case, the long-term rich ultimately pay a rate of less than 20% these days, thanks to the bizarre way in which dividends are taxed and the ability to restate compensation as whatever you want it to be (just as $1 a year Steve Jobs.)
We need more of a rising tide type economics, to raise all boats, rather than a policy based on salvaging one fishing boat and hoping the guy in it can haul in enough fish for the rest of us.
This is completely false, and was debunked over and over again when the argument was first made as the crisis started. I suggest you pull yourself out of the echo chamber, as it's sitting in the chamber that leads people to say that 47% of the population are dependent on government, or that Obama didn't use the word "Terror" the day after an attack on a consulate.
The vast majority of sub-prime loans were issued by banks and divisions of banks not regulated by the CRA. Further, the CRA's anti-discrimination language is just that, it prevents discrimination by race, not by credit rating. It is still perfectly legal to reject someone for a mortgage if they don't have good credit, or have bad assets, etc, whether they're white, black, or blue.
As such you're also being used when you repeat the argument without thinking about it. The CRA argument (that the CRA forced banks to give money to black people) was an inherently racist argument, propped up only by the superficial disclaimer that people who voiced it pretended they weren't aware that banks still could reject anyone on the basis of creditworthiness. The people who came up with this argument in the first place knew full well, however, that the CRA didn't abolish creditworthiness checks, and they knew full well that the argument would spread by "clever" right-wingers thinking they were being anti-PC and who wouldn't notice the creditworthiness issue, and active racists.
Stop making this claim. The claim is debunked. Even if it hadn't been, it was stupid, nonsensical, and ultimately racist to begin with. You're not doing anyone any favors by repeating it, especially yourself.
They limited their dates to 1981 onwards. You'd have had a point if they'd gone back to 1961, but they didn't even get close to this alleged period they supposedly removed from the stats.
I think an FPGA should fit in the same category personally and be covered by the same anti-liability law. An FPGA is an off the shelf part that's programmable, violating no patents by itself, but suddenly doing so if someone programs it in a way that violates a patent.
If you encode an MP3 decoder in an FPGA you own, then good for you. Likewise if you ship source to such a thing. If you, however, bundle that FPGA into a hardware product, and sell the hardware product, then it's a whole new ballgame. I'd rather patents didn't apply there either, but just as a medical device controlled by a PC that's been embedded into the hardware wouldn't be affected by Stallman's law (the PC is no longer a PC in that instance), neither would the FPGA in your (overpriced...) MP3 player.
And how are they supposed to fix New York without the latest in technology to help them? What are you saying, they should use an ANDROID TABLET or something?
I dislike him because of his beliefs. It's his way or the highway.
That's everyone's beliefs by definition. If you don't have a sense of right and wrong, or how the world should work, then you're not human. Reminds me of the friend who tried to convince me that a certain economist was an "ideologue". "He has some fixed concept of how the world works and predicts things on that!" Leaving aside the fact the economist in question had, actually, very publically revised his view of the world several times when results didn't fit the models he used, the comment was utterly stupid: what he was describing were models, and economists use models. The good ones revise their models when reality doesn't match them, the bad ones pretend that their models always work and ignore reality, but the allegation was stupid.
Your allegation against Stallman is especially stupid. You just described a belief as, well, a belief. And used it as a criticism.
But leaving that aside, what Stallman has a habit of is converting his beliefs into a set of pragmatic projects and proposals that everyone can live with. Two extremely prominent examples are the GPL, a license that a developer can choose to use, if the developer wishes the software they release to always be part of a free software infrastructure, and the GNU project, a body of free software that enabled the bootstrapping of an entire free software ecosystem.
Those pragmatic projects benefitted everyone, regardless of whether they shared Stallman's belief or view of the world or not. Linus Torvalds, who is famously not an enthusiast of Stallman's ideals, used the infrastructure Stallman's work produced to build what's probably the world's most popular and widely use operating system kernel. And he'll be the first to tell you that.
But, hey, he's a dirty smelly hippy or something, so let's ignore what he actually does and use word games to pretend he's totally teh eval.
I don't know, I missed the cold war. The threat of communism was enough to ensure that politicians, business leaders, and other people in power didn't consider it acceptable to throw people out of work so that those in charge could get obscene raises they didn't need.
It sucked to live under communism. It was, however, good to live in a first world country that had it as an enemy. Islamist terrorism? That seems to have us going headlong into fascism.
The fact they do it with a friendly party doesn't mean they aren't refusing to do it with others.
Apple doesn't, apparently, want to cross license with the vast majority of Android phone makers, largely because it still acts like it invented 99% of the technologies that made the iPhone, and anything vaguely similar to it is a rip-off. (And lest we get the usual gaggle of Apple fans here - if Android is a rip-off of iOS, why don't you like it?)
I think it's 3x FWIW. But in any case, isn't the frame rate for LCD more of an "update" rate than "flicker" rate? With CRTs, they're the same thing, I thought (but may be wrong) that LCDs stay unchanged until updated, with the flicker rate of an unchanging screen being whatever the backlight's flicker rate is.
I think we need a version of Android that has a UI and functionality suited to the desktop first. Oh, and apps that support it.
It wasn't until Jelly Bean (yes, I said JB - I've used HC and ICS, and I've used them on tablets) that Google finally figured out how to make a decent tablet UI. I think we're years away from an Android suitable for the desktop.
Also, a relatively fair question is why? If Android had a decent desktop UI, then wouldn't it be more convenient for most people to use their phones as a convergant device, using it as a phone on the road, and docking it with a monitor, pointing device, and keyboard when they're somewhere where portability isn't a requirement? The Android laptop seems... well, it seems like a stop-gap product.
I dunno, I'd also like compensation for loss of earnings and stuff that'll be inevitable if I'm suddenly embroiled in a high profile terrorism/pedo/piracy court case. Plus some mechanism to ensure my wife and child aren't affected in any way, and a lot of anxiety medicine.
Actually, on second thought, let me just stick with keep WAP switched on on my router. Thanks EFF, I like your idea in principle, but, hey, I kinda like communism in principle too. In principle. Just not violent revolutions followed by "temporary" dictatorships of the proletariat that never actually end.
Yes, and you probably aren't able to make phone calls over it, and if you're lucky enough to have a device that supports both Verizon and AT&T's LTE then the engineers had to jump through some hoops to make it work because of the weird decisions Verizon made about how they'd implement it.
I dearly want LTE to be "ready", but at the moment it's really like the major carriers are conducting an experiment, and roping in their customers to do the testing.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC this product only works on broadcast TV stations, the ones you can receive anyway using rabbit ears. Well, not literally, I mean using a regular antenna, actually chopping off the ears of a rabbit and gluing them to your TV is cruel, disgusting, and isn't going to let you receive any new channels you wouldn't be able to anyway - except perhaps one or two UHF channels of the type where if you stand on one side of the room the signal kinda comes in, but move two feet to the left and then it doesn't.
Anyway, that's the deal, which makes sense because if it was any of the satellite-only channels then the operators of those channels would refuse to license their content to Dish, or maybe ask for more in subscription money, somethhing like that.
So, yeah, Myth with a cheap ATSC card can be used to do something similar. Although I've used the Myth commercial skipping feature and quite honestly it's not all it's cracked up to be, can be a PITA if it skips an "ad" that isn't an ad as it's difficult to get that part of the boradcast to play. Also the UI sucks, but you already knew that. "By Programmers for Programmers" is the motto, but I'm a programmer and I don't want to use it.
Also a full description and analysis of his tax plan here: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
I think we can safely say that conservatives would never choose such a name. Fun? Happy? Love? That's positively unchristian!
He said smaller. If Obama had engaged in no wars over the last four years, the comment presumably wouldn't have been "A zero chance of being "liberated""
Remember the guy Obama defeated the first time? That nice old person, think he's married to Betty White or something? "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
To clarify your comment: British miles are the same size. British gallons are smaller than US gallons (for some reason.) British MPG figures, therefore, are larger than US MPG figures for the same fuel efficiency rating.
Yeah, I (together with few million other Americans) will be doing that tomorrow...
iPhone maps have been around for years and have seen constant reliable use, so surely people who are complaining about it now are wrong?
SAMBA 4 most definitely has not been deployed for decades and is a virtually entirely new system. Of course, it hasn't even been released yet! (The publically downloadable versions are alphas, betas, and RCs.) I don't doubt it'll be a great system, but faulting sysadmins for anything other than using unfinished software in a production environment is absurd.
There are always edge cases, but I can see ways in which postal votes would be less accurate, and emailed votes would be more accurate.
Mail in the US is normally left in householder's unsecured mailboxes for a mailman to pick up during the day and put into the postal system. Checking the mailboxes of homes displaying "Vote {My candidate's opponent}" signs and "disappearing" the easily identified mailed votes before the mailman gets there is certainly a practical concept. You wouldn't get all the votes that way, but you'd get enough to make a difference.
Can the same be done with email? Yes, kinda, but these days there's an expectation that your email is not going to go through, and quite honestly if you don't get an acknowledgement that your ballot was delivered in a reasonable period of time, then you're going to investigate. And acknowledgements themselves are going to be suspected by the more paranoid users who will follow up with phone calls and other contact methods. If someone gets an "acknowledgement", and then calls the polling office and finds it's forged, then - whoops!
Now, you're talking tampering, but actually tampering a scan is relatively hard to do in a way that cannot be detected. Moreover, it takes time, time that would make it uneconomical for most entities to do it. If a rogue sysadmin at Google's GMail department seriously wants to f-ck with emailed ballots, they could easily drop a few thousand with a "misconfiguring" of their MTA, but it would get progressively harder to do in a way that detects votes against their favored candidate, and it would get impossibly hard to do without an army of photoshop experts to intercept, modify, and send, a few thousand ballots (enough to make a difference.)
Also bear that in mind - that the fraud would have to be from someone at Google, Yahoo, Hotmail, or AOL, to stand a serious chance of swaying the vote. A sysadmin at an ISP with a few thousand users or less is highly unlikely to be able to intercept enough votes to make any difference. For all of the faults of "big corporations", few would be in a position to secretly sway an election in this way without a whistleblower calling it, few would have employees in situations where they could sway an election without their employer finding out about it and firing them, and few would actually risk everything in order to change whether tweedledum or tweedledee actually wins.
Given the time constraints with this, I don't see any legitimate reason to criticise NJ on this. If they'd given notice last year they were going to do it, or if they weren't requiring scans of presumably unique paper documents sent to each address, then yeah, there'd be a heavy probably of mass fraud that wouldn't otherwise exist, but I just don't see it here, and Slashdot should probably tone down their hysterical summary on this.
Probably the same way they reconcile it if they get snailed mailed two ballots for the same person.
Look, it's not hard people. This is vote-by-mail with the "Mailbox to Voter Office" part of the process replaced with "scan and fax or email from home to Voter Office." There is no way to commit fraud that wasn't already possible.
OK, so you're saying, let me understand you correctly, that rather than pick a representative sample of years, say, the last 30, the sample should have included some cherry picked periods from the 1950s in order to make everything look A-OK (presumably, though, you'd be against including the prior 30 years, in case that diluted the 1950s figures that make the past look like such a hell hole?)
Here's a better idea, let's be intellectually honest, rather than cherry picking data and then having the nerve to complain the scientists who actually did the results cherry picked because they didn't include your cherry picked data.
I agree.
People who are wealthy will spend more, but, you know, if I'm a billionaire, exactly how many plasma TVs can I reasonably buy before I have too many plasma TVs? Ultimately, the impact on the economy would seem to be slight.
Worse still, if every dollar I pull out of my company to pay myself is now worth, for the sake of argument 80c instead of 70c, wouldn't it stand to reason that there's more incentive for me to pull money out of my business? Perhaps even an incentive to run it into the ground - it's doing well now and can pay me a fortune, why wait - it might not always be like that?
Tax cuts to people on more ordinary salaries tends to be more effective because the number of - well, I used plasma TVs above - things bought will be massively increased, and that'll raise the economy.
The funny thing is I suspect some ultra-capitalists would agree with me, reluctantly of course. Henry Ford is famous for raising the salaries of his own employees. He knew that his own business would benefit from that, both temporarily as quality improved from motivated workers, but also in the medium to longer term as other companies would be forced to compete and raise there's, thus increasing the pool of people who could afford... Ford's vehicles.
The counter arguments tend to be these which may or may not be true, depending on how you think about it:
1. Giving more money to the rich will enable them to invest in job creation programs. My view is that the opposite is true - the money for job creation is done through businesses, always, never through their leaders. That is, if I leave my money in a business and ensure the business runs at maximum efficiency, the money is untaxed anyway.
2. If you tax people too highly, they'll continue to pay themselves well but will move the money off-shore, out of reach of any tax authorities. With respect, i think the overwhelming evidence is that this happens anyway, and in any case, the long-term rich ultimately pay a rate of less than 20% these days, thanks to the bizarre way in which dividends are taxed and the ability to restate compensation as whatever you want it to be (just as $1 a year Steve Jobs.)
We need more of a rising tide type economics, to raise all boats, rather than a policy based on salvaging one fishing boat and hoping the guy in it can haul in enough fish for the rest of us.
This is completely false, and was debunked over and over again when the argument was first made as the crisis started. I suggest you pull yourself out of the echo chamber, as it's sitting in the chamber that leads people to say that 47% of the population are dependent on government, or that Obama didn't use the word "Terror" the day after an attack on a consulate.
The vast majority of sub-prime loans were issued by banks and divisions of banks not regulated by the CRA. Further, the CRA's anti-discrimination language is just that, it prevents discrimination by race, not by credit rating. It is still perfectly legal to reject someone for a mortgage if they don't have good credit, or have bad assets, etc, whether they're white, black, or blue.
As such you're also being used when you repeat the argument without thinking about it. The CRA argument (that the CRA forced banks to give money to black people) was an inherently racist argument, propped up only by the superficial disclaimer that people who voiced it pretended they weren't aware that banks still could reject anyone on the basis of creditworthiness. The people who came up with this argument in the first place knew full well, however, that the CRA didn't abolish creditworthiness checks, and they knew full well that the argument would spread by "clever" right-wingers thinking they were being anti-PC and who wouldn't notice the creditworthiness issue, and active racists.
Stop making this claim. The claim is debunked. Even if it hadn't been, it was stupid, nonsensical, and ultimately racist to begin with. You're not doing anyone any favors by repeating it, especially yourself.
Leaving aside the "Two years does not a trend make", you are aware that Hurricane Season lasts longer than a month, right?
They limited their dates to 1981 onwards. You'd have had a point if they'd gone back to 1961, but they didn't even get close to this alleged period they supposedly removed from the stats.
I think an FPGA should fit in the same category personally and be covered by the same anti-liability law. An FPGA is an off the shelf part that's programmable, violating no patents by itself, but suddenly doing so if someone programs it in a way that violates a patent.
If you encode an MP3 decoder in an FPGA you own, then good for you. Likewise if you ship source to such a thing. If you, however, bundle that FPGA into a hardware product, and sell the hardware product, then it's a whole new ballgame. I'd rather patents didn't apply there either, but just as a medical device controlled by a PC that's been embedded into the hardware wouldn't be affected by Stallman's law (the PC is no longer a PC in that instance), neither would the FPGA in your (overpriced...) MP3 player.
And how are they supposed to fix New York without the latest in technology to help them? What are you saying, they should use an ANDROID TABLET or something?
That's everyone's beliefs by definition. If you don't have a sense of right and wrong, or how the world should work, then you're not human. Reminds me of the friend who tried to convince me that a certain economist was an "ideologue". "He has some fixed concept of how the world works and predicts things on that!" Leaving aside the fact the economist in question had, actually, very publically revised his view of the world several times when results didn't fit the models he used, the comment was utterly stupid: what he was describing were models, and economists use models. The good ones revise their models when reality doesn't match them, the bad ones pretend that their models always work and ignore reality, but the allegation was stupid.
Your allegation against Stallman is especially stupid. You just described a belief as, well, a belief. And used it as a criticism.
But leaving that aside, what Stallman has a habit of is converting his beliefs into a set of pragmatic projects and proposals that everyone can live with. Two extremely prominent examples are the GPL, a license that a developer can choose to use, if the developer wishes the software they release to always be part of a free software infrastructure, and the GNU project, a body of free software that enabled the bootstrapping of an entire free software ecosystem.
Those pragmatic projects benefitted everyone, regardless of whether they shared Stallman's belief or view of the world or not. Linus Torvalds, who is famously not an enthusiast of Stallman's ideals, used the infrastructure Stallman's work produced to build what's probably the world's most popular and widely use operating system kernel. And he'll be the first to tell you that.
But, hey, he's a dirty smelly hippy or something, so let's ignore what he actually does and use word games to pretend he's totally teh eval.
I don't know, I missed the cold war. The threat of communism was enough to ensure that politicians, business leaders, and other people in power didn't consider it acceptable to throw people out of work so that those in charge could get obscene raises they didn't need.
It sucked to live under communism. It was, however, good to live in a first world country that had it as an enemy. Islamist terrorism? That seems to have us going headlong into fascism.
The fact they do it with a friendly party doesn't mean they aren't refusing to do it with others.
Apple doesn't, apparently, want to cross license with the vast majority of Android phone makers, largely because it still acts like it invented 99% of the technologies that made the iPhone, and anything vaguely similar to it is a rip-off. (And lest we get the usual gaggle of Apple fans here - if Android is a rip-off of iOS, why don't you like it?)
I think it's 3x FWIW. But in any case, isn't the frame rate for LCD more of an "update" rate than "flicker" rate? With CRTs, they're the same thing, I thought (but may be wrong) that LCDs stay unchanged until updated, with the flicker rate of an unchanging screen being whatever the backlight's flicker rate is.
I don't understand what you're asking or why you're asking it. Sorry. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes?
I think we need a version of Android that has a UI and functionality suited to the desktop first. Oh, and apps that support it.
It wasn't until Jelly Bean (yes, I said JB - I've used HC and ICS, and I've used them on tablets) that Google finally figured out how to make a decent tablet UI. I think we're years away from an Android suitable for the desktop.
Also, a relatively fair question is why? If Android had a decent desktop UI, then wouldn't it be more convenient for most people to use their phones as a convergant device, using it as a phone on the road, and docking it with a monitor, pointing device, and keyboard when they're somewhere where portability isn't a requirement? The Android laptop seems... well, it seems like a stop-gap product.
While Coruscant was clearly inspired by Trantor, I think it's a bit much to describe it as a 1:1 copy. There are no domes, for starters.
I dunno, I'd also like compensation for loss of earnings and stuff that'll be inevitable if I'm suddenly embroiled in a high profile terrorism/pedo/piracy court case. Plus some mechanism to ensure my wife and child aren't affected in any way, and a lot of anxiety medicine.
Actually, on second thought, let me just stick with keep WAP switched on on my router. Thanks EFF, I like your idea in principle, but, hey, I kinda like communism in principle too. In principle. Just not violent revolutions followed by "temporary" dictatorships of the proletariat that never actually end.
Yes, and you probably aren't able to make phone calls over it, and if you're lucky enough to have a device that supports both Verizon and AT&T's LTE then the engineers had to jump through some hoops to make it work because of the weird decisions Verizon made about how they'd implement it.
I dearly want LTE to be "ready", but at the moment it's really like the major carriers are conducting an experiment, and roping in their customers to do the testing.