Even disregarding the community aspect, Odroid runs a weirdo/old software stack.
Ubuntu 16.04 is "weirdo/old"?
The reason I'd avoid it is because I' m trying to use one of their XU4s to run a GigE camera, and under Ubuntu 15.4 it appears to have issues handling jumbo frames. That's a bit better than what happens using the official Hardkernel Ubuntu 15.10 -- the GigE controller (connected through the USB, as is done on the Pi) disconnects about ten seconds after being initialized. I.e., it simply disappears. And I can't get an answer from Hardkernel about any fixes they plan for this.
I'm guessing it is poor quality control from a Chinese factory using ROHS solder. It certainly wouldn't be anything unrelated to the specific board, like the 15.10 drivers just plain don't work with the hardware, could it?
As for the summary, no, the C2 does not swap out GigE, it swaps IN GigE.
I don't feel that was misleading. When somebody says that they towed their car, I do not assume that they put it on it's roof to do so.
And when they include the weight of the car in the statement, they are implying that the weight of the vehicle is somehow relevant.
The main hurdle to "pulling" something is the friction, not the mass. If you put the Eiffel Tower on a set of rollers that had the equivalent rolling resistance that a 3900 pound car has, I betcha six people could pull it, too. If the brakes aren't on, one person can push a loaded railroad car. And if you use levers and pulleys (machines) for assistance, you can pull a lot.
At many county fairs there used to be a popular show called "the tractor pull". People would compete in pulling a loaded sled with their tractors. They'd all start out able to pull the sled, but as the sled moved forward, so did a large weight that increased the friction between the sled and the ground. Only the beefier tractors could pull it the full distance, but all of them could pull it.
This has nothing to do with "someone else" committing a crime,
Oh, for Pete's sake. Of course it does. Here, I'll quote YOU again:
He denied access, but I posit that this isn't anywhere near as bad as intercepting and listening in on peoples' private communications.
Since the government happily does this all the time with devices like Stingray,
They shouldn't charge the jammer with a crime because people in the government are committing other crimes.
it has to do with the cops and government themselves committing crimes.
Those are the other people you just claimed you weren't using as the reason why the jammer cannot be charged.
Or make an emergency stop, jump off the train, and then get stuck in a traffic jam on their way to home (spouse's work place, shopping mall, whatever)?
I get on the train for the morning hour commute into the city. My wife, who dropped me off at the station, is hit by a truck even before the train leaves. I can get the call about it while I'm still well outside the city, hop off at the next stop, take the return, and be home at least an hour before I could be if your jammer is blocking that emergency call. Further, I can get updates on her condition while I'm traveling, call other relatives that need to know (and might be closer and able to get there in time), and do a lot of crisis management because of that cell phone. Unless there's some jerk who is so wrapped up in his personal enjoyment of life that he violates federal laws to shut down cell service where he is.
Don't think an hour matters? My flight into Chicago many years ago was two hours late. I got to the hospital a half hour after my father died. Yes, an hour can matter very much, but only to people who have emotional attachments to others.
People did actually survive things like a spouse dieing before there were cell phones.
Yeah, and then life got better and communications got faster, and we can respond to emergencies faster than before, so fewer people die and more people can deal with the events in time to make a difference.
Your attitude is so cold and callous. Heartless is another word for it. "Fuck you and anything to do with YOUR life, I don't want you to be able to use your cellphone in my vicinity for ANY PURPOSE whatsoever because I say so." That's what you are defending here.
they are going to be notified later about something over which they could have done nothing.
Except maybe been there to say goodbye.
I hope you are sitting next to a jammer should this ever happen to you, perhaps you'd grow up. Or maybe you have nobody in your life that you value that much. Either way, you're just a sad example of a human being.
not seeing the logistics of a bad guys making your scary "dirty bomb".
Explosives, radioactive material. Boom.
They are going to get something nasty like say spent nuclear fuel or cesium-137 or strontium-90 ( very traceable as to origin, by the way),
So someone can trace the origin after it is all over but the shouting. That somehow prevents it?
then somehow powder that stuff
Boom. Powder. Or particles. Doesn't have to be very fine. It just has to be radioactive enough to scare the wits out of the public.
without dying from five or more times lethal dose exposure,
Thank goodness that everyone who handles radioactive stuff dyes [SIC] when they do it. It's dangerous, but it seems that people can do it. We've got a nuclear reactor on the other side of campus. We're all dying right now.
...and then even after detonation it's a very local problem for a very small area.
And being a "local problem" means it wasn't a nuclear attack precisely how?
Time to Google something called the "Cold War" I think...
As someone who was alive when the cold war was going on, I can tell you that the Cold War did not include small independent states, it was a stand-off between the major nuclear powers and the use of missile and bomber delivered weapons. It involved two large countries who knew they had everything to lose by starting a nuclear war. A nuclear attack would garner a nuclear response.
The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible. They have little to lose in such an attack, and much to gain. So yes, the chances of a nuclear attack on US soil are greater now.
Using law to combat petty shit like this is why people have trouble respecting it.
Laws that apply to things that don't seem like a problem when one person does it are generally implemented because it becomes a problem when thousands of people do it. And they are usually passed because it has been a problem. What is "petty shit" when you are the only one doing it can become a significant problem when you and all your friends and all their friends join in.
It's patently stupid to have a police officer remind you of a law, even one you don't agree with, and then flagrantly continue to violate it in front of him. If you're willing to commit civil disobedience to make a point about a law, you need to be ready to be arrested. And you cannot claim she wasn't aware of the law.
One of my favorite lines from a Jessie Stone movie (Tom Selleck) is when he's talking to a teen about truancy and drug use. She asks him if it is right or wrong for her Mom to act a certain way. He answers: "I'm not in the right and wrong business, I'm in the legal and illegal business." The police officer here tried to do the right thing (warn), but he was pushed into doing the legal thing.
The jammer is wrong, but the vast majority of other users are annoying someone.
No. Unless you are particularly annoyed that everyone isn't paying attention to you and your happiness, then the vast majority of cell phone users aren't annoying anyone.
I'd love to hear you explain how my cell phone in my pocket is annoying you, because the vast majority of cell phone users are doing exactly the same thing I do most of the time.
Heavy cellphone use is creepy.
What a wonderfully meaningless statement. I have my cellphone with me almost all the time I am out of the house. Is that "heavy" use? What's "creepy", and what is creepy about my having a cell phone with me? And how did we get from "jammer blocking all use" to "heavy use"? Did you think that jammers only jam the heavy users?
He denied access, but I posit that this isn't anywhere near as bad as intercepting and listening in on peoples' private communications.
"Officer, I don't think you can give me a ticket for going 80 MPH in a 30 MPH zone because you had to drive 80 MPH to catch me so you are guilty too! And my neighbor Bill parks illegally all the time, so because someone else committed a crime you can't charge me, so there!"
I think it is a positive attribute of the criminal justice system that people who commit a crime don't get let off the hook just because someone else committed a different crime.
What about the vast majority of the cell users who were sitting there minding their own business but didn't have use of the cell service they were paying for? Like the people who were streaming music into their earphones so they could enjoy the ride, but were stopped by the "dick" who was breaking federal law. What about the people who were on the way to meet someone, but couldn't get the text message that the meeting was delayed or called off because of this dick? What about... oh, never mind. You're so focused on the one dick and the one loud talker that you're ignoring the damage this dick did to a large number of innocent people.
It is perfectly reasonable for the government to throw the book at this guy, simply as deterrent to others who might think it is a good idea to shut off other people's access to cell phone service.
If he did what he is accused of then he is guilty of disturbing the peace.
No, he didn't disturb the peace. He operated an unlicensed transmitting device with the intent of causing harmful interference to licensed users. Deliberate and willful. He caused deliberate harmful interference to a communication system used by a large number of people. Those are federal crimes, and the deliberate nature of the crime makes it more serious.
it appears you are missing the point, the first action if there is emergency on chicago CTA train is not to pull out cell phone that may or may not work depending on where on the line you are, but to use the nice emergency comm system provided.
You seem to be missing the point that cell phone technology has advanced to the point where it is now two-way communications. It is not always the cell phone user who is observing a local emergency, but there may be external emergencies that involve the cell phone user and someone outside is calling him. Or trying to but cannot because some jerk is breaking federal law by jamming the signal.
How does someone who is about to get an emergency call (about an injured spouse, etc.) know to stand up and press the big red button, and just how will pressing the button help?
You also seem to be missing the point that a jammer does not distinguish between the "annoying user" who must be silenced at all costs, and the vast majority of other users who are not. They're paying for that service, they aren't disturbing anyone, and yet the jammer feels compelled to stop them, too.
I hope one such asshole with an active jammer is sitting right next to you the day when your wife is in an automobile accident and the hospital is trying to contact you about it. Or your daughter. Or your wife goes into labor and needs you. Or your daughter.
I was in a bookstore with a friend when he pulls out his phone and starts talking to his wife. "How rude", I thought. Then I found out his wife was calling because she was having complications and was going to the hospital and needed him. I learned from that. You can't predict when the next emergency happens.
Yes, before cell phones he wouldn't have known until he got back to the office. But he knew a lot faster and was able to be there a lot sooner because of the cell phone, and in the overall scheme of things, his talking on his phone in the bookstore was a trivial annoyance.
Other people can be annoying. Grow up and learn to deal with it like an adult.
When someone yells "Does anyone have cell service? I do not and I have an emergency" then turn it off.
How about just not violating federal laws to begin with? Much easier, and it allows all the people who are using their cellphones without making any noises at all to continue to do so unhindered.
They're the public airwaves, and while the cellphone companies are getting a good chunk of the use of them, so are all the people using their cellphones. They don't belong to this jerk with a jammer to decide that nobody else can use them.
None of us walked around feeling insecure because 911 wasn't a keypress away.
You shouldn't speak for other people when you clearly don't know. Of course they didn't think "911 isn't a keypress away" when neither 911 nor "keypresses" existed, but it is lunacy to think that the availability of emergency assistance wasn't a consideration when only landline phones existed.
You can see that today in the behaviour of people who do risky things with the expectation that they can just pull out a cell and call 911 to get help. We see people go out into the wilderness around here many times with that very belief, only to wind up needing a search and rescue team to come get them. It is a common recurring education process to get people to carry emergency survival supplies with them when they go into areas where their lives could depend on them, simply because they're expecting to call 911 and get saved.
Saying that "we survived the time" when we didn't have 911 and cellphones ignores the very real fact that the times have changed. Blocking cell calls has the very real possibility of blocking a life-saving 911 cell call, and saying "just wait until the next metro stop to find a pay phone" is ludicrous.
While that lead to her arrest, it was the act of chewing on candy in her mouth that was the initial cause.
Did you read the article you cited? The consumption of food in a metro station was the initial cause of a warning. The failure to produce identification and decision to just walk away was the cause of the arrest.
She was warned twice. Instead of stopping, she copped an attitude, spouted off to a cop, tried just walking away while being cited, and got busted for it.
I agree she acted stupidly, and he she stopped would probably only got a ticket,
No, had she stopped after getting the first warning, she would have walked away with a verbal warning. Because she acted as if she didn't care that she was breaking a law, she got a ticket.
I quoted you verbatim. How can I misrepresent what you said when they are your words in the order you said them? I may not have gotten the meaning from them that you intended, but sir, I did not misrepresent you in any way. And from your response here, I know that I did not misinterpret them.
Again, I don't think laws are necessary to make things lawful, that simply is a lie you said.
You demanded that someone show you a law that makes what they are doing legal. It isn't much clearer than that. If you DON'T think that laws are necessary to make things legal, then how can you demand that someone show you one that does such a thing? (I know how -- you want a good rant about some perceived fascist government and you don't care if you can't prove they're doing something wrong, you want to prove they are doing something wrong because they can't quote you a law that doesn't exist.)
We have a multitude of laws preventing government espionage. I did not make the claim that what they did was unlawful, they made the claim that what they did was lawful.
And then you demanded that they show you the law that makes what they did legal. That's not how laws work in the US of A. That may be how you WANT them to work, but sorry, it isn't.
And it doesn't work that way in the USA that you can leap from "military drones were requested to fly in US airspace" to "espionage." It is simply ridiculous to do that. It amounts to nothing more than assuming that which you need to prove, and then claiming you proved it because of the assumption.
I claimed and repeat the claim here that fascist governments routinely claim that what they do is lawful without any support for that claim
As do all governments that are doing things that are legal. If you want to show it is illegal, you need to come up with the law that makes it illegal. If there are thousands of laws that say it is, then you should be able to quote just one. You haven't. Nobody has. Less than twenty times in ten years -- and that's only how many times there was a request, not how many times it actually happened.
As such, their blatant word must be supported, not the other way around.
In other words, they must prove a negative to you, you aren't required to quote any law that says what they did was illegal. They must quote you a law that DOES NOT EXIST. That's ridiculous.
Multiple people claimed that drowning someone was a legal way to conduct an interrogation.
No, they did not. Waterboarding is not drowning someone, and it is a misrepresentation to say it is.
Because the people in NYC have learned that they can vote taxes onto the backs of others to pay for things they want, or elect people who will create such taxes for them. de Tocqueville:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
A corralary: a democacy can survive only until the have-nots learn they can tax the haves for things they want.
It happens everywhere. In parts of Michigan outside Detroit metro, it was a common complaint that people were paying taxes to build things for Detroit residents. Like the much touted "Mugger Mover" (outstate name for a moving sidewalk).
This "city" service is run by the county, so there is a huge amount of taxpayer subsidy going into it. This system is not "paying off", it is sucking money. I didn't say a city of that size can't have bus service, I said it cannot have bus service that 'pays off' -- i.e., is sustainable and self-funding.
That's fine because people who live in the city heavily subsidize people who live in the suburbs.
Umm, people in the suburbs who have no or little access to the bus service are not being subsidized, they are the ones who are subsizing the city dwellers. And city dwellers who have little to no access to the bus system are subsidizing other city dwellers.
You don't think young people are more likely than older people to move from rural areas to built-up civilization?
That's not what you said and you know it. You said "You lose the ability to adjust to civilized life as you get old." That's patently absurd and outrageously ageist. "Old people" are the ones who have paid for your civilization, youngster, so telling them they are unable to "adjust" to it is just ridiculous.
It is a problem solved by using long division. I've seen a definition of long division that requires the divisor to have multiple digits, but oddly enough the Wikipedia section on long division has several examples of numbers divided by four. I think if "dividing by 4" is long division, dividing by 3 is, too.
but they shouldn't spend 4 years in elementary school teaching something no one will ever use.
Blame the dumbing down of education if it took you four years of school to learn long division.
they could have been introducing more abstract mathematical concepts that are far more valuable like algebra and trigonometry.
Because third graders are at just the right age to understand trigonometry.
I'm not even sure I could still do it many many years later because I've never ever used it.
Good thing your cell phone has a calculator, otherwise you'd never be able to split a check.
Could the low price of gasoline be part of the reason?
No. The high cost of infrastructure (buses, trains, employees) to provide mass transit, combined with the low usage rates of less dense areas.
You simply can't get the number of riders to make a bus system pay off in a city of as large as 50,000, and when you consider the vast areas of this country where you don't have even that density of population... mass transit is nice where it works, and it is usually highly subsidized even then. We have a tax on our water bill to pay for free bus rides for everyone, for example. People who never set foot on a bus and aren't close to any of the limited number of lines pay for others to ride.
You lose the ability to adjust to civilized life as you get old.
What a completely asinine and insulting argument you just made.
You want to convince me it's lawful, state the supreme court ruling or specific law that allows it.
What a sad world you live in that you want specific laws to exist to allow you to do something legally, instead of having specific laws to make specific things illegal.
Otherwise, don't talk about it being lawful, it just makes you look like a fascist.
Which system of government is it that would require a law to make something legal?
By the way, nobody said that drowning anyone was legal. Hyperbole does not make your argument stronger.
I agree -- less than 20 times in 9 years is hardly "proliferation". "Military drone flight" does not equate to "law enforcement". And there are many more uses for such hardware than SAR and mapping. Disaster relief, for example. How much damage was done by that flood, and where?
Slashdot Mirror
Even disregarding the community aspect, Odroid runs a weirdo/old software stack.
Ubuntu 16.04 is "weirdo/old"?
The reason I'd avoid it is because I' m trying to use one of their XU4s to run a GigE camera, and under Ubuntu 15.4 it appears to have issues handling jumbo frames. That's a bit better than what happens using the official Hardkernel Ubuntu 15.10 -- the GigE controller (connected through the USB, as is done on the Pi) disconnects about ten seconds after being initialized. I.e., it simply disappears. And I can't get an answer from Hardkernel about any fixes they plan for this.
I'm guessing it is poor quality control from a Chinese factory using ROHS solder. It certainly wouldn't be anything unrelated to the specific board, like the 15.10 drivers just plain don't work with the hardware, could it?
As for the summary, no, the C2 does not swap out GigE, it swaps IN GigE.
the video shows what is essentially 6 miniature wenches, not walking robots
I don't care what they do as long as they are available to bring me my slippers, a couple of beers, and a sammich when I want them.
I don't feel that was misleading. When somebody says that they towed their car, I do not assume that they put it on it's roof to do so.
And when they include the weight of the car in the statement, they are implying that the weight of the vehicle is somehow relevant.
The main hurdle to "pulling" something is the friction, not the mass. If you put the Eiffel Tower on a set of rollers that had the equivalent rolling resistance that a 3900 pound car has, I betcha six people could pull it, too. If the brakes aren't on, one person can push a loaded railroad car. And if you use levers and pulleys (machines) for assistance, you can pull a lot.
At many county fairs there used to be a popular show called "the tractor pull". People would compete in pulling a loaded sled with their tractors. They'd all start out able to pull the sled, but as the sled moved forward, so did a large weight that increased the friction between the sled and the ground. Only the beefier tractors could pull it the full distance, but all of them could pull it.
This has nothing to do with "someone else" committing a crime,
Oh, for Pete's sake. Of course it does. Here, I'll quote YOU again:
They shouldn't charge the jammer with a crime because people in the government are committing other crimes.
it has to do with the cops and government themselves committing crimes.
Those are the other people you just claimed you weren't using as the reason why the jammer cannot be charged.
That's not an emergency.
How sad you are.
Or make an emergency stop, jump off the train, and then get stuck in a traffic jam on their way to home (spouse's work place, shopping mall, whatever)?
I get on the train for the morning hour commute into the city. My wife, who dropped me off at the station, is hit by a truck even before the train leaves. I can get the call about it while I'm still well outside the city, hop off at the next stop, take the return, and be home at least an hour before I could be if your jammer is blocking that emergency call. Further, I can get updates on her condition while I'm traveling, call other relatives that need to know (and might be closer and able to get there in time), and do a lot of crisis management because of that cell phone. Unless there's some jerk who is so wrapped up in his personal enjoyment of life that he violates federal laws to shut down cell service where he is.
Don't think an hour matters? My flight into Chicago many years ago was two hours late. I got to the hospital a half hour after my father died. Yes, an hour can matter very much, but only to people who have emotional attachments to others.
People did actually survive things like a spouse dieing before there were cell phones.
Yeah, and then life got better and communications got faster, and we can respond to emergencies faster than before, so fewer people die and more people can deal with the events in time to make a difference.
Your attitude is so cold and callous. Heartless is another word for it. "Fuck you and anything to do with YOUR life, I don't want you to be able to use your cellphone in my vicinity for ANY PURPOSE whatsoever because I say so." That's what you are defending here.
they are going to be notified later about something over which they could have done nothing.
Except maybe been there to say goodbye.
I hope you are sitting next to a jammer should this ever happen to you, perhaps you'd grow up. Or maybe you have nobody in your life that you value that much. Either way, you're just a sad example of a human being.
not seeing the logistics of a bad guys making your scary "dirty bomb".
Explosives, radioactive material. Boom.
They are going to get something nasty like say spent nuclear fuel or cesium-137 or strontium-90 ( very traceable as to origin, by the way),
So someone can trace the origin after it is all over but the shouting. That somehow prevents it?
then somehow powder that stuff
Boom. Powder. Or particles. Doesn't have to be very fine. It just has to be radioactive enough to scare the wits out of the public.
without dying from five or more times lethal dose exposure,
Thank goodness that everyone who handles radioactive stuff dyes [SIC] when they do it. It's dangerous, but it seems that people can do it. We've got a nuclear reactor on the other side of campus. We're all dying right now.
...and then even after detonation it's a very local problem for a very small area.
And being a "local problem" means it wasn't a nuclear attack precisely how?
Time to Google something called the "Cold War" I think...
As someone who was alive when the cold war was going on, I can tell you that the Cold War did not include small independent states, it was a stand-off between the major nuclear powers and the use of missile and bomber delivered weapons. It involved two large countries who knew they had everything to lose by starting a nuclear war. A nuclear attack would garner a nuclear response.
The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible. They have little to lose in such an attack, and much to gain. So yes, the chances of a nuclear attack on US soil are greater now.
Using law to combat petty shit like this is why people have trouble respecting it.
Laws that apply to things that don't seem like a problem when one person does it are generally implemented because it becomes a problem when thousands of people do it. And they are usually passed because it has been a problem. What is "petty shit" when you are the only one doing it can become a significant problem when you and all your friends and all their friends join in.
It's patently stupid to have a police officer remind you of a law, even one you don't agree with, and then flagrantly continue to violate it in front of him. If you're willing to commit civil disobedience to make a point about a law, you need to be ready to be arrested. And you cannot claim she wasn't aware of the law.
One of my favorite lines from a Jessie Stone movie (Tom Selleck) is when he's talking to a teen about truancy and drug use. She asks him if it is right or wrong for her Mom to act a certain way. He answers: "I'm not in the right and wrong business, I'm in the legal and illegal business." The police officer here tried to do the right thing (warn), but he was pushed into doing the legal thing.
The jammer is wrong, but the vast majority of other users are annoying someone.
No. Unless you are particularly annoyed that everyone isn't paying attention to you and your happiness, then the vast majority of cell phone users aren't annoying anyone.
I'd love to hear you explain how my cell phone in my pocket is annoying you, because the vast majority of cell phone users are doing exactly the same thing I do most of the time.
Heavy cellphone use is creepy.
What a wonderfully meaningless statement. I have my cellphone with me almost all the time I am out of the house. Is that "heavy" use? What's "creepy", and what is creepy about my having a cell phone with me? And how did we get from "jammer blocking all use" to "heavy use"? Did you think that jammers only jam the heavy users?
He denied access, but I posit that this isn't anywhere near as bad as intercepting and listening in on peoples' private communications.
"Officer, I don't think you can give me a ticket for going 80 MPH in a 30 MPH zone because you had to drive 80 MPH to catch me so you are guilty too! And my neighbor Bill parks illegally all the time, so because someone else committed a crime you can't charge me, so there!"
I think it is a positive attribute of the criminal justice system that people who commit a crime don't get let off the hook just because someone else committed a different crime.
There are no good guys in this story.
What about the vast majority of the cell users who were sitting there minding their own business but didn't have use of the cell service they were paying for? Like the people who were streaming music into their earphones so they could enjoy the ride, but were stopped by the "dick" who was breaking federal law. What about the people who were on the way to meet someone, but couldn't get the text message that the meeting was delayed or called off because of this dick? What about ... oh, never mind. You're so focused on the one dick and the one loud talker that you're ignoring the damage this dick did to a large number of innocent people.
It is perfectly reasonable for the government to throw the book at this guy, simply as deterrent to others who might think it is a good idea to shut off other people's access to cell phone service.
If he did what he is accused of then he is guilty of disturbing the peace.
No, he didn't disturb the peace. He operated an unlicensed transmitting device with the intent of causing harmful interference to licensed users. Deliberate and willful. He caused deliberate harmful interference to a communication system used by a large number of people. Those are federal crimes, and the deliberate nature of the crime makes it more serious.
it appears you are missing the point, the first action if there is emergency on chicago CTA train is not to pull out cell phone that may or may not work depending on where on the line you are, but to use the nice emergency comm system provided.
You seem to be missing the point that cell phone technology has advanced to the point where it is now two-way communications. It is not always the cell phone user who is observing a local emergency, but there may be external emergencies that involve the cell phone user and someone outside is calling him. Or trying to but cannot because some jerk is breaking federal law by jamming the signal.
How does someone who is about to get an emergency call (about an injured spouse, etc.) know to stand up and press the big red button, and just how will pressing the button help?
You also seem to be missing the point that a jammer does not distinguish between the "annoying user" who must be silenced at all costs, and the vast majority of other users who are not. They're paying for that service, they aren't disturbing anyone, and yet the jammer feels compelled to stop them, too.
We need more such jammers on the trains
I hope one such asshole with an active jammer is sitting right next to you the day when your wife is in an automobile accident and the hospital is trying to contact you about it. Or your daughter. Or your wife goes into labor and needs you. Or your daughter.
I was in a bookstore with a friend when he pulls out his phone and starts talking to his wife. "How rude", I thought. Then I found out his wife was calling because she was having complications and was going to the hospital and needed him. I learned from that. You can't predict when the next emergency happens.
Yes, before cell phones he wouldn't have known until he got back to the office. But he knew a lot faster and was able to be there a lot sooner because of the cell phone, and in the overall scheme of things, his talking on his phone in the bookstore was a trivial annoyance.
Other people can be annoying. Grow up and learn to deal with it like an adult.
When someone yells "Does anyone have cell service? I do not and I have an emergency" then turn it off.
How about just not violating federal laws to begin with? Much easier, and it allows all the people who are using their cellphones without making any noises at all to continue to do so unhindered.
They're the public airwaves, and while the cellphone companies are getting a good chunk of the use of them, so are all the people using their cellphones. They don't belong to this jerk with a jammer to decide that nobody else can use them.
None of us walked around feeling insecure because 911 wasn't a keypress away.
You shouldn't speak for other people when you clearly don't know. Of course they didn't think "911 isn't a keypress away" when neither 911 nor "keypresses" existed, but it is lunacy to think that the availability of emergency assistance wasn't a consideration when only landline phones existed.
You can see that today in the behaviour of people who do risky things with the expectation that they can just pull out a cell and call 911 to get help. We see people go out into the wilderness around here many times with that very belief, only to wind up needing a search and rescue team to come get them. It is a common recurring education process to get people to carry emergency survival supplies with them when they go into areas where their lives could depend on them, simply because they're expecting to call 911 and get saved.
Saying that "we survived the time" when we didn't have 911 and cellphones ignores the very real fact that the times have changed. Blocking cell calls has the very real possibility of blocking a life-saving 911 cell call, and saying "just wait until the next metro stop to find a pay phone" is ludicrous.
While that lead to her arrest, it was the act of chewing on candy in her mouth that was the initial cause.
Did you read the article you cited? The consumption of food in a metro station was the initial cause of a warning. The failure to produce identification and decision to just walk away was the cause of the arrest.
She was warned twice. Instead of stopping, she copped an attitude, spouted off to a cop, tried just walking away while being cited, and got busted for it.
I agree she acted stupidly, and he she stopped would probably only got a ticket,
No, had she stopped after getting the first warning, she would have walked away with a verbal warning. Because she acted as if she didn't care that she was breaking a law, she got a ticket.
You have radically misreprenesnted what I said.
I quoted you verbatim. How can I misrepresent what you said when they are your words in the order you said them? I may not have gotten the meaning from them that you intended, but sir, I did not misrepresent you in any way. And from your response here, I know that I did not misinterpret them.
Again, I don't think laws are necessary to make things lawful, that simply is a lie you said.
You demanded that someone show you a law that makes what they are doing legal. It isn't much clearer than that. If you DON'T think that laws are necessary to make things legal, then how can you demand that someone show you one that does such a thing? (I know how -- you want a good rant about some perceived fascist government and you don't care if you can't prove they're doing something wrong, you want to prove they are doing something wrong because they can't quote you a law that doesn't exist.)
We have a multitude of laws preventing government espionage. I did not make the claim that what they did was unlawful, they made the claim that what they did was lawful.
And then you demanded that they show you the law that makes what they did legal. That's not how laws work in the US of A. That may be how you WANT them to work, but sorry, it isn't.
And it doesn't work that way in the USA that you can leap from "military drones were requested to fly in US airspace" to "espionage." It is simply ridiculous to do that. It amounts to nothing more than assuming that which you need to prove, and then claiming you proved it because of the assumption.
I claimed and repeat the claim here that fascist governments routinely claim that what they do is lawful without any support for that claim
As do all governments that are doing things that are legal. If you want to show it is illegal, you need to come up with the law that makes it illegal. If there are thousands of laws that say it is, then you should be able to quote just one. You haven't. Nobody has. Less than twenty times in ten years -- and that's only how many times there was a request, not how many times it actually happened.
As such, their blatant word must be supported, not the other way around.
In other words, they must prove a negative to you, you aren't required to quote any law that says what they did was illegal. They must quote you a law that DOES NOT EXIST. That's ridiculous.
Multiple people claimed that drowning someone was a legal way to conduct an interrogation.
No, they did not. Waterboarding is not drowning someone, and it is a misrepresentation to say it is.
Why i have to pay for them is beyond me
Because the people in NYC have learned that they can vote taxes onto the backs of others to pay for things they want, or elect people who will create such taxes for them. de Tocqueville:
A corralary: a democacy can survive only until the have-nots learn they can tax the haves for things they want.
It happens everywhere. In parts of Michigan outside Detroit metro, it was a common complaint that people were paying taxes to build things for Detroit residents. Like the much touted "Mugger Mover" (outstate name for a moving sidewalk).
This city of 8,738 has bus service.
This "city" service is run by the county, so there is a huge amount of taxpayer subsidy going into it. This system is not "paying off", it is sucking money. I didn't say a city of that size can't have bus service, I said it cannot have bus service that 'pays off' -- i.e., is sustainable and self-funding.
That's fine because people who live in the city heavily subsidize people who live in the suburbs.
Umm, people in the suburbs who have no or little access to the bus service are not being subsidized, they are the ones who are subsizing the city dwellers. And city dwellers who have little to no access to the bus system are subsidizing other city dwellers.
You don't think young people are more likely than older people to move from rural areas to built-up civilization?
That's not what you said and you know it. You said "You lose the ability to adjust to civilized life as you get old." That's patently absurd and outrageously ageist. "Old people" are the ones who have paid for your civilization, youngster, so telling them they are unable to "adjust" to it is just ridiculous.
Dividing a check by 3 isn't long division.
It is a problem solved by using long division. I've seen a definition of long division that requires the divisor to have multiple digits, but oddly enough the Wikipedia section on long division has several examples of numbers divided by four. I think if "dividing by 4" is long division, dividing by 3 is, too.
but they shouldn't spend 4 years in elementary school teaching something no one will ever use.
Blame the dumbing down of education if it took you four years of school to learn long division.
they could have been introducing more abstract mathematical concepts that are far more valuable like algebra and trigonometry.
Because third graders are at just the right age to understand trigonometry.
I'm not even sure I could still do it many many years later because I've never ever used it.
Good thing your cell phone has a calculator, otherwise you'd never be able to split a check.
Could the low price of gasoline be part of the reason?
No. The high cost of infrastructure (buses, trains, employees) to provide mass transit, combined with the low usage rates of less dense areas.
You simply can't get the number of riders to make a bus system pay off in a city of as large as 50,000, and when you consider the vast areas of this country where you don't have even that density of population ... mass transit is nice where it works, and it is usually highly subsidized even then. We have a tax on our water bill to pay for free bus rides for everyone, for example. People who never set foot on a bus and aren't close to any of the limited number of lines pay for others to ride.
You lose the ability to adjust to civilized life as you get old.
What a completely asinine and insulting argument you just made.
Furthermore, if it's OK, then why do they repeatedly emphasize that the total number of employments was small?
Because it makes the people who claim that this is a "proliferation" look like nuts. OMG, 20 times in nine years! The world is coming to an end.
You want to convince me it's lawful, state the supreme court ruling or specific law that allows it.
What a sad world you live in that you want specific laws to exist to allow you to do something legally, instead of having specific laws to make specific things illegal.
Otherwise, don't talk about it being lawful, it just makes you look like a fascist.
Which system of government is it that would require a law to make something legal?
By the way, nobody said that drowning anyone was legal. Hyperbole does not make your argument stronger.
I agree -- less than 20 times in 9 years is hardly "proliferation". "Military drone flight" does not equate to "law enforcement". And there are many more uses for such hardware than SAR and mapping. Disaster relief, for example. How much damage was done by that flood, and where?