This case was meaningless either way to the GPL, their was never a challenge in this case to the entirety of copyright law. Had the Judge declared this a act of fair use, then copyright law would still exist; the GPL would still stand. Pystar would continue re-selling copyrighted works. The copyright world would not have fallen to it's knees like you claim. Simply Apple would still have a direct competitor.
Open source is based on copyright law. If the court found against Apple, it would mean anyone could make "adaptations" without permission. It would also mean that open source licenses could not impose their conditions.
Their was nothing about that in this case. It was never claimed by PyStar that copyright was invalid, Pystar sold a unmodified version of OS-X along with a modified version of OS-X, that was what this case was about. If they sell a unmodified version, can they also include a modified version? (the answer was no) Your just scare monogramming about Oh-my god if the interpret some small part of copyright doesn't always apply in all cases, then all copyright law is immediately invalid. That's crap we both know that, the rest of your post is insightful, that statement is just spreading FUD.
MS could create MS Ubuntu without releasing any source code. I could create my own version of Windows, etc.
MS can create a MS Ubuntu without releasing any source code, and you can create your own version of windows (if it is based off of windows you have to have a license for windows to do this.) Those are both completely valid fair use exemptions. Granted these versions can't be distributed without triggering issues, but MS can certainly maintain a modified internal version of MS Ubuntu, as long as those internal to MS can get a copy of those changes. And actually if MS didn't modify any of the Ubuntu source code to produce the "MS Ubuntu" binary, they could sell the modified MS Ubuntu under the GPL, but they couldn't use the Ubuntu name, without releasing any source code. IE they could use a different compiler...
The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.
that may not be entirely correct with that argument, Pystar was paying Apple for a license for every copy of their product that they made, and giving Apple full credit, selling it as "Apple OS-X". Open source already had a similar ruling, IE your allowed to copy, and modify the firefox software all you want but you must not call it firefox (or use their logos) you have to have your own name like say iceweasel and simply give credit, and share changes. I suspect the thing that upset Apple the most (legitimately) with Pystar was more likely associating Apples name, logos, and reputation for OS-X in a attempt to make money on hardware. Pystar should be allowed to (and likely is allowed to) build compatible hardware, modify apples software to run on that hardware, and to sell licensed apple products (OS-X.) Correct, they shouldn't be allowed to sell the modified software as Apple software (or as their own), and probably shouldn't be allowed to use Apples name, logos, etc in association with pyStar hardware. I do disagree with the judge on that last point, A boot loader is not DRM, and thus "Psystar's Rebel EFI" software, that appears to modify apples software to allow a different boot-loader, shouldn't be illegal on those grounds (now if py-star didn't write or license that software, and it is from someone else, they should make that claim not apple.)
You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.
It would be a violation of the OEM license terms, it is quite possible that the provision is not legally binding to a end user, since the End user is not really presented with those terms... System builders/purchasers are, and would be bound. IE that is the issue decided here, is that the License applies to a "re-distributor", it may (or may not) apply legally to a end user. IE it may (or may not) still be a valid licensed legal version of MAC OS-X if a end user purchases OS-X and installs and uses it for their personal use on hardware, even if that hardware is other than that intended by Apple. I am sure many restrictions apply on how you could advertise/sell this "clone" running OS-X, but I doubt it would be considered a "pirated" version. IE you could probably sell the license and hardware in the same transaction but listed as separate items, but you probably couldn't advertise in anyway that you were selling a mac/apple clone running OS-X even if you used the term clone. But I doubt you would have to remove/delete the contents of the hard drive, as long as the OS-X license was transferred to the same person as the computer.
you can stop their, no matter the pay those with disposable income are the (minority) who consistently spend less than they earn. The target audience are generally the ones who you can convince to juggle one more monthly expense and only cut back when someone finally cuts their credit card in half.
I did, they are trying, so far 2 tries out of hundreds http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37972 no successes due to impossible rules to get any somewhat connected judge thrown out.
well, it seams highly unlikely they could get this ummmm "deposit" back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India#Judiciary Seams very likely this payment would guarantee the defendants never get their day in court, only bled out and locked up. While it is a admiral statement by the Judge, it probably is just like any politician the stated intent is exactly the opposite as the reality of the plan.
They do, sort of. You can't buy the nook/iphone/etc from any carrier anymore without choosing the high dollar plans (For the iphone it is a $99/month (not) unlimited plan last I checked.) for the entire 2 years. You should be able to subscribe this phone to the lower plans. I can't find any of the verizon/sprint droid phones for a cash price currently. So this is good news. Generally I am in some wifi area or another, and just want to start the GPS tracking... and drop the cost of paying a second network cost to verizon... So a unlocked droid phone would get me nearly the same access for 1/2 the monthly fee of a locked one.
I wonder of the modem can be swiped out for a WiFi card.
the nook comes with a WiFi modem already internal. That is the interesting part for me, if they now have a browser for the nook I will likely order one (for Febuary delivery:( ) seams like a really handy reference material storage device, even if without 3G...
The iphone, tivo, Xbox... all have come out locked down and had options to open them up, but the percentage of people who were willing to do this has been small enough to not affect profitability, and were largely ignored by the respective companies. I am not sure than the per kb cost for internet access is really that high even to a cell operator, that kept to the capabilities of the nook could be more than a few cents a month. However the profitability of internet seams very high, so I do see them wanting to keep this to a low enough level that people don't cancel their cellular internet plans, and use a nook for tethering...
then perhaps you should learn to pack your stuff with some common sense (and perhaps put your all-American family on a diet).
FYI, in the US it is not un-common to take trips where we drive 500 miles non-stop at 70 mph. I realize that is mostly impossible in Europe (or wasteful driving in circles) where in 500 miles you might cross 5 countries. In the US you might have driven 1/2 way across Texas. If you are sitting in a car for 7 hours, no adult is going to want to ride for 7 hours in the back seat of your typical small car, I know I did 3.5 hours in Spain and took me a hour to recover. My pickup has no problem going 700 miles between fill-ups, and I have averaged 65 mph for 1300 Miles in a 20 hour period at least 5 times in the US. Each trip was to move something large, IE brought another pickup from IA, to AZ, Job relocation move, moved a camper (for a 6 month temporary living at 2 different locations)
Actually the ppm (parts per million) ratios are gone for on highway in the US, it is purely a grams per mile emissions standard for on highway cars in the US. It is percent emissions only for off highway. However, that's for the manufactures to meet, your local emissions test is going to be a PPM rating that they look-up for compliance, so I understand the confusion.
FYI, soot is not the only emission to look out for, NOx emissions of a diesel are the other headache. The Issue is that you can directly trade NOx emissions for Soot emissions visa/versa simply by changing the injection timing, while making the same power. Soot I don't believe is a green house gas, and is more of a local air quality item. So any manufacture can make a very clean diesel engine that makes no soot, NOx be dammed, IE European standard. So that is what you saw, starting after 2000 manufactures eliminated the soot. Then in 2008 NOx was the driving regulation in USA, so they brought back the soot, and added in Soot filters to capture that out of the exhaust and burn it later. Also The amount you refine petroleum the reduced energy content, but also the cleaner burning. So diesel is less refined, and thus has more energy content, but wasn't as clean of burning. So now we refine it more, make it cleaner burning at a cost.
it is not an employer making a judgment, it is an employee or maybe even a head-hunter making the "disqualified" judgment. Likely someone in HR, who you (if a big company) would never ever deal with once in 20 years at the company. So while you may never want to work with someone who judges you unworthy on one mistake you made years ago, you likely never would have anyway. So I think it is important to not give HR a reason, if you can to care if your hired. Although this person must have a very unique name, if a web search is pulling up something that could be condemning that old. I know 10 years ago a google search on my name found 80% of stuff relating to me. Now it is more like.001% Apparently 10 years ago I had a unique name on the web, not anymore.
E-book needs are not all the great for everyone for sure, but their practicality is also unmatched by any other one device. Do you know of a device that lasts days on a charge gives you access to that web content on the move, and will cost me a total of less than $400 (figure a dozen paid books, a hundred free ones) for a couple years, to acquire and use consistently. Also these readers do let you put notes into the works also. I know I had a link to a site that gave me the design I wanted for my concrete block wall, rafters, etc... Now gone from the web. For programming books, sure web is good. But I sure wish I had all of my old college books, and notes with me many times. So many specialized little references to business law, chemistry, and a few other little gems that would be very handy to have without trying to find the right search terms. Even just Professional-Reference codebooks, anyone fact can be looked up on the web but I don't always have web, and they just aren't bundled together enough to make a convenient local copy.
you should keep reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation_(helicopter) Helicopter has the same capability of forward controlled flight with Auto-rotation, assuming you can still have control of the blade pitch, except it also has the additional ability of going straight down slowly, a plane doesn't.
Sure, but apple has been known (see google voice) to approve them, and only seriously review them if they start selling, ie after you have spent your money, but before you made a profit. If your writing quick little ain't that cute games, who cares if a few get kicked. On the other hand if you have just $10,000 and spent 6 months and all your money to buy a mac... to make your killer app, then get some generic apple response "it violates our polices, but which ones, and why we are keeping secret." Does you no good, your company is gone, with your savings. Especially when apple has pules apps after they were selling, and they spent money on support... Then forces the developers to give refunds of 130% of what the developer got paid (developer had to pay back apples cut to unhappy customers.) customers were only unhappy because apple pulled the developers ability to support the app.
I don't understand why, but the nook says you can't purchase books over wifi (cell network required), can only download already purchased books from your account over wifi. From the wording, it doesn't make it clear if you can purchase books online with a PC into your account first, that would then be download-able, or not.
both can do pdf, just the reviews I have seen say the kindles doesn't have the fonts and many pdf features (indexs, etc), so pdfs are generally screwed up unless they are rendered into a binary only format, which breaks lots of other things... No idea if the nook is better, but it seams it will be much more hackable to fix any shortcoming without waiting for amazon... (The nook is also supposed to annotate pdf's, and remember page numbers, etc that apparently the kindle doesn't do with pdf's.)
Lots of small monopolies on Cable TV, and Internet (I assume you add them up it might be significant.) They had a monopoly on all cable channels, and internet access at my last apartment. Also Local builders signed a contract with them into a subdivision that only a cable line would be run into all houses built in that division, and no other cabling would be allowed (so phone, internet, cable TV). So if your house didn't have a clear view of the southern sky, you had no other choice if you bought there for many services. I assume these deals have a time limit, and thus won't always be a monopoly, but they had a monopoly, not nationwide but lots of little monopolies. To me that monopoly would drastically lower the value of the house, but apparently many didn't care.
cell phone your talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_47_CFR_Part_15#C_-_Intentional_radiators So still at the whim of the FCC when you don't need a license. Also only one side of the cell phone (not the tower) can get away with the maximum power levels to be exempted, you need a bigger high gain antenna on the other side to receive those low power signals, tower transmits at a higher power so you can have a smaller antenna at the phone. FYI State constitutions cannot violate the US constitution. They (states) can pass laws (and have additional rights in a state constitution) even if they violate federal laws (hence the money only big hand of fed government), but not the US constitution. The constitution doesn't regulate individuals acts, only government acts. But state governments are governments regulated by the constitution.
the STATE government grants drivers licenses. All state governments are covered under the same constitutional requirements, but the federal government still oversee those rights (although only a CDL has any significant federal legal requirements). Also your phone better have a FCC identification number or it is illegal to be sold in the US, the Radio towers that allow the phone to work all must have their FCC Licenses up to date as well. So no federal license, no cell phone.
It's also possible to fool that tracking, either with peer to peer type of apps, throw away phones, or swapping phones... So raising this concern will allow future phones to start running tor, or equivalent to give the choice back to the consumers. It isn't a guarantee that cell phones must be traceable by the providers. True, some other device will always know your distance, but that doesn't mean that those device have to be controlled by the corporations/governments to always record and pass along that info.
how the hell does the Federal Government have the power to demand to know whether or not I'm carrying insurance?
for example, driving is considered a privilege, not a right. Same is true of using cell phone, etc that uses the "public" airways. So your free to not have (car) insurance, or have it checked as long as you give up the "privilege" of driving. True today for car insurance, true tomorrow for health insurance? I am guessing the US government couldn't require proof of health insurance of people in their private homes, but they probably could to anyone who use public transit, go to a hospital/business that takes any government money, etc... Thus I am guessing 90+% of the people could be required to effectively carry (health...) insurance without violating the standing interpretation of the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
This case was meaningless either way to the GPL, their was never a challenge in this case to the entirety of copyright law. Had the Judge declared this a act of fair use, then copyright law would still exist; the GPL would still stand. Pystar would continue re-selling copyrighted works. The copyright world would not have fallen to it's knees like you claim. Simply Apple would still have a direct competitor.
Open source is based on copyright law. If the court found against Apple, it would mean anyone could make "adaptations" without permission. It would also mean that open source licenses could not impose their conditions.
Their was nothing about that in this case. It was never claimed by PyStar that copyright was invalid, Pystar sold a unmodified version of OS-X along with a modified version of OS-X, that was what this case was about. If they sell a unmodified version, can they also include a modified version? (the answer was no) Your just scare monogramming about Oh-my god if the interpret some small part of copyright doesn't always apply in all cases, then all copyright law is immediately invalid. That's crap we both know that, the rest of your post is insightful, that statement is just spreading FUD.
MS could create MS Ubuntu without releasing any source code. I could create my own version of Windows, etc.
MS can create a MS Ubuntu without releasing any source code, and you can create your own version of windows (if it is based off of windows you have to have a license for windows to do this.) Those are both completely valid fair use exemptions. Granted these versions can't be distributed without triggering issues, but MS can certainly maintain a modified internal version of MS Ubuntu, as long as those internal to MS can get a copy of those changes. And actually if MS didn't modify any of the Ubuntu source code to produce the "MS Ubuntu" binary, they could sell the modified MS Ubuntu under the GPL, but they couldn't use the Ubuntu name, without releasing any source code. IE they could use a different compiler...
The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.
that may not be entirely correct with that argument, Pystar was paying Apple for a license for every copy of their product that they made, and giving Apple full credit, selling it as "Apple OS-X". Open source already had a similar ruling, IE your allowed to copy, and modify the firefox software all you want but you must not call it firefox (or use their logos) you have to have your own name like say iceweasel and simply give credit, and share changes. I suspect the thing that upset Apple the most (legitimately) with Pystar was more likely associating Apples name, logos, and reputation for OS-X in a attempt to make money on hardware. Pystar should be allowed to (and likely is allowed to) build compatible hardware, modify apples software to run on that hardware, and to sell licensed apple products (OS-X.) Correct, they shouldn't be allowed to sell the modified software as Apple software (or as their own), and probably shouldn't be allowed to use Apples name, logos, etc in association with pyStar hardware. I do disagree with the judge on that last point, A boot loader is not DRM, and thus "Psystar's Rebel EFI" software, that appears to modify apples software to allow a different boot-loader, shouldn't be illegal on those grounds (now if py-star didn't write or license that software, and it is from someone else, they should make that claim not apple.)
You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.
It would be a violation of the OEM license terms, it is quite possible that the provision is not legally binding to a end user, since the End user is not really presented with those terms... System builders/purchasers are, and would be bound. IE that is the issue decided here, is that the License applies to a "re-distributor", it may (or may not) apply legally to a end user. IE it may (or may not) still be a valid licensed legal version of MAC OS-X if a end user purchases OS-X and installs and uses it for their personal use on hardware, even if that hardware is other than that intended by Apple. I am sure many restrictions apply on how you could advertise/sell this "clone" running OS-X, but I doubt it would be considered a "pirated" version. IE you could probably sell the license and hardware in the same transaction but listed as separate items, but you probably couldn't advertise in anyway that you were selling a mac/apple clone running OS-X even if you used the term clone. But I doubt you would have to remove/delete the contents of the hard drive, as long as the OS-X license was transferred to the same person as the computer.
the people with disposable income
you can stop their, no matter the pay those with disposable income are the (minority) who consistently spend less than they earn. The target audience are generally the ones who you can convince to juggle one more monthly expense and only cut back when someone finally cuts their credit card in half.
I did, they are trying, so far 2 tries out of hundreds http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37972 no successes due to impossible rules to get any somewhat connected judge thrown out.
. For instance, the Delhi High Court has a backlog of 466 years according to its chief justice.[1] This is despite the average processing time of four minutes and 55 seconds in the court.
see MS will never see this money back, because the pirates will be locked up until their day in court (year 2455) awaiting trial.
So if by democratic, you mean corporation and money wins, then yes this seams 400 years ahead of USA.
well, it seams highly unlikely they could get this ummmm "deposit" back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India#Judiciary Seams very likely this payment would guarantee the defendants never get their day in court, only bled out and locked up. While it is a admiral statement by the Judge, it probably is just like any politician the stated intent is exactly the opposite as the reality of the plan.
They do, sort of. You can't buy the nook/iphone/etc from any carrier anymore without choosing the high dollar plans (For the iphone it is a $99 /month (not) unlimited plan last I checked.) for the entire 2 years. You should be able to subscribe this phone to the lower plans. I can't find any of the verizon/sprint droid phones for a cash price currently. So this is good news. Generally I am in some wifi area or another, and just want to start the GPS tracking... and drop the cost of paying a second network cost to verizon...
So a unlocked droid phone would get me nearly the same access for 1/2 the monthly fee of a locked one.
I wonder of the modem can be swiped out for a WiFi card.
the nook comes with a WiFi modem already internal. That is the interesting part for me, if they now have a browser for the nook I will likely order one (for Febuary delivery :( ) seams like a really handy reference material storage device, even if without 3G...
The iphone, tivo, Xbox... all have come out locked down and had options to open them up, but the percentage of people who were willing to do this has been small enough to not affect profitability, and were largely ignored by the respective companies. I am not sure than the per kb cost for internet access is really that high even to a cell operator, that kept to the capabilities of the nook could be more than a few cents a month. However the profitability of internet seams very high, so I do see them wanting to keep this to a low enough level that people don't cancel their cellular internet plans, and use a nook for tethering...
then perhaps you should learn to pack your stuff with some common sense (and perhaps put your all-American family on a diet).
FYI, in the US it is not un-common to take trips where we drive 500 miles non-stop at 70 mph. I realize that is mostly impossible in Europe (or wasteful driving in circles) where in 500 miles you might cross 5 countries. In the US you might have driven 1/2 way across Texas. If you are sitting in a car for 7 hours, no adult is going to want to ride for 7 hours in the back seat of your typical small car, I know I did 3.5 hours in Spain and took me a hour to recover. My pickup has no problem going 700 miles between fill-ups, and I have averaged 65 mph for 1300 Miles in a 20 hour period at least 5 times in the US. Each trip was to move something large, IE brought another pickup from IA, to AZ, Job relocation move, moved a camper (for a 6 month temporary living at 2 different locations)
Actually the ppm (parts per million) ratios are gone for on highway in the US, it is purely a grams per mile emissions standard for on highway cars in the US. It is percent emissions only for off highway. However, that's for the manufactures to meet, your local emissions test is going to be a PPM rating that they look-up for compliance, so I understand the confusion.
FYI, soot is not the only emission to look out for, NOx emissions of a diesel are the other headache. The Issue is that you can directly trade NOx emissions for Soot emissions visa/versa simply by changing the injection timing, while making the same power. Soot I don't believe is a green house gas, and is more of a local air quality item. So any manufacture can make a very clean diesel engine that makes no soot, NOx be dammed, IE European standard. So that is what you saw, starting after 2000 manufactures eliminated the soot. Then in 2008 NOx was the driving regulation in USA, so they brought back the soot, and added in Soot filters to capture that out of the exhaust and burn it later.
Also The amount you refine petroleum the reduced energy content, but also the cleaner burning. So diesel is less refined, and thus has more energy content, but wasn't as clean of burning. So now we refine it more, make it cleaner burning at a cost.
it is not an employer making a judgment, it is an employee or maybe even a head-hunter making the "disqualified" judgment. Likely someone in HR, who you (if a big company) would never ever deal with once in 20 years at the company. So while you may never want to work with someone who judges you unworthy on one mistake you made years ago, you likely never would have anyway. So I think it is important to not give HR a reason, if you can to care if your hired. .001% Apparently 10 years ago I had a unique name on the web, not anymore.
Although this person must have a very unique name, if a web search is pulling up something that could be condemning that old. I know 10 years ago a google search on my name found 80% of stuff relating to me. Now it is more like
E-book needs are not all the great for everyone for sure, but their practicality is also unmatched by any other one device.
Do you know of a device that lasts days on a charge gives you access to that web content on the move, and will cost me a total of less than $400 (figure a dozen paid books, a hundred free ones) for a couple years, to acquire and use consistently.
Also these readers do let you put notes into the works also. I know I had a link to a site that gave me the design I wanted for my concrete block wall, rafters, etc... Now gone from the web.
For programming books, sure web is good. But I sure wish I had all of my old college books, and notes with me many times. So many specialized little references to business law, chemistry, and a few other little gems that would be very handy to have without trying to find the right search terms.
Even just Professional-Reference codebooks, anyone fact can be looked up on the web but I don't always have web, and they just aren't bundled together enough to make a convenient local copy.
you should keep reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation_(helicopter) Helicopter has the same capability of forward controlled flight with Auto-rotation, assuming you can still have control of the blade pitch, except it also has the additional ability of going straight down slowly, a plane doesn't.
it's not that difficult to get an app approved.
Sure, but apple has been known (see google voice) to approve them, and only seriously review them if they start selling, ie after you have spent your money, but before you made a profit.
If your writing quick little ain't that cute games, who cares if a few get kicked. On the other hand if you have just $10,000 and spent 6 months and all your money to buy a mac... to make your killer app, then get some generic apple response "it violates our polices, but which ones, and why we are keeping secret." Does you no good, your company is gone, with your savings. Especially when apple has pules apps after they were selling, and they spent money on support... Then forces the developers to give refunds of 130% of what the developer got paid (developer had to pay back apples cut to unhappy customers.) customers were only unhappy because apple pulled the developers ability to support the app.
I don't understand why, but the nook says you can't purchase books over wifi (cell network required), can only download already purchased books from your account over wifi. From the wording, it doesn't make it clear if you can purchase books online with a PC into your account first, that would then be download-able, or not.
both can do pdf, just the reviews I have seen say the kindles doesn't have the fonts and many pdf features (indexs, etc), so pdfs are generally screwed up unless they are rendered into a binary only format, which breaks lots of other things...
No idea if the nook is better, but it seams it will be much more hackable to fix any shortcoming without waiting for amazon... (The nook is also supposed to annotate pdf's, and remember page numbers, etc that apparently the kindle doesn't do with pdf's.)
So what monopoly does Comcast have again?
Lots of small monopolies on Cable TV, and Internet (I assume you add them up it might be significant.) They had a monopoly on all cable channels, and internet access at my last apartment. Also Local builders signed a contract with them into a subdivision that only a cable line would be run into all houses built in that division, and no other cabling would be allowed (so phone, internet, cable TV). So if your house didn't have a clear view of the southern sky, you had no other choice if you bought there for many services. I assume these deals have a time limit, and thus won't always be a monopoly, but they had a monopoly, not nationwide but lots of little monopolies. To me that monopoly would drastically lower the value of the house, but apparently many didn't care.
cell phone your talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_47_CFR_Part_15#C_-_Intentional_radiators So still at the whim of the FCC when you don't need a license. Also only one side of the cell phone (not the tower) can get away with the maximum power levels to be exempted, you need a bigger high gain antenna on the other side to receive those low power signals, tower transmits at a higher power so you can have a smaller antenna at the phone.
FYI State constitutions cannot violate the US constitution. They (states) can pass laws (and have additional rights in a state constitution) even if they violate federal laws (hence the money only big hand of fed government), but not the US constitution. The constitution doesn't regulate individuals acts, only government acts. But state governments are governments regulated by the constitution.
the STATE government grants drivers licenses. All state governments are covered under the same constitutional requirements, but the federal government still oversee those rights (although only a CDL has any significant federal legal requirements). Also your phone better have a FCC identification number or it is illegal to be sold in the US, the Radio towers that allow the phone to work all must have their FCC Licenses up to date as well. So no federal license, no cell phone.
It's also possible to fool that tracking, either with peer to peer type of apps, throw away phones, or swapping phones... So raising this concern will allow future phones to start running tor, or equivalent to give the choice back to the consumers. It isn't a guarantee that cell phones must be traceable by the providers. True, some other device will always know your distance, but that doesn't mean that those device have to be controlled by the corporations/governments to always record and pass along that info.
how the hell does the Federal Government have the power to demand to know whether or not I'm carrying insurance?
for example, driving is considered a privilege, not a right. Same is true of using cell phone, etc that uses the "public" airways. So your free to not have (car) insurance, or have it checked as long as you give up the "privilege" of driving. True today for car insurance, true tomorrow for health insurance? I am guessing the US government couldn't require proof of health insurance of people in their private homes, but they probably could to anyone who use public transit, go to a hospital/business that takes any government money, etc... Thus I am guessing 90+% of the people could be required to effectively carry (health...) insurance without violating the standing interpretation of the constitution.