The camera should switch all intersection traffic red if a reckless driver is about to enter a busy intersection on red.
This statement and the one about someone approaching "at a dangerous speed" show the problem with the idea. What is "a dangerous speed"? How does a camera know if someone is "about to enter" an intersection, with enough lead time to do anything constructive with the information? I mean, I can be stopped at an intersection with the front of my car 2 inches behind the stop line, and within a second I can be in the intersection. What will that camera do with that one second lead time?
Approaching "at a dangerous speed?" I can be fully stopped (zero speed) and still create a danger by entering the intersection just a couple of seconds later, or I can do a California stop and creep into the intersection -- still a hazard to others if they have the green.
Especially when the interpretation of that "bad string" is supposed to be CASE INSENSITIVE and the "exception" occurs because one character is upper case.
URI are defined here, and the part that deals with the "file:" or "http:" part (called the "scheme") says this:
3.1. Scheme...
Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a
letter and followed by any combination of letters, digits, plus
("+"), period ("."), or hyphen ("-"). Although schemes are case-
insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that
specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters. An implementation
should accept uppercase letters as equivalent to lowercase in scheme
names (e.g., allow "HTTP" as well as "http") for the sake of
robustness but should only produce lowercase scheme names for
consistency.
Emphasis mine.
This is a case of a programmer implementing a feature defined in a standard and ignoring the standard when doing so. Not lazy, just ignorant and stupid. Just like the ignorant stupid programmers who write javascript email address verifiers that refuse to accept valid email addresses because they contain characters like '+'. Those programmers should be shot.
No, I understand rights perfectly fine. You, on the other hand, don't seem to understand what it takes for rights to actually exist in a society.
There is a difference between a right and the ability to exercise that right. That's what you don't understand. The right exists whether you like the reason someone wants to exercise it or not. Every time you say "I don't see why..." or "Why do you need...", you demonstrate that what you are talking about isn't a right, in your opinion.
However, it also makes no sense to argue that because there are law-breakers, there's no point to laws.
I didn't argue that. Did you? The argument that "it is already against the law to do X and people are ignoring the law and doing X anyway, so adding another law to make X illegal won't solve the problem" is considerably different than "there is a law, people break the law, thus there should be no laws at all." It's a pretty obvious difference, don't you think?
Except that I'm talking about something that actually happened, and that that event was facilitated by the existence of semi-automatic weapons. You can't just wish reality to go away.
And yet every gun control advocate is wishing that the reality of guns would go away -- and hoping that just one more law will make it happen. You're the one missing out on reality, I'm afraid. The reality is, bad people ignore the law. They will ignore the law if you make two laws, three laws, four laws, a dozen. The guy who steals a gun and goes to a school to shoot the defenseless children there is already breaking more than one law, of both man and God. Why is it "reality" to think that adding another law would keep him from doing it?
And, like I said, nobody is arguing in support of making it easy to kill a roomful of children. That's hyperbole that makes discussing this with you very difficult.
However, they do need justification for their existence
No. If they need justification to you for any reason, they are not rights, they are privileges. You just do not grasp the concept of basic rights, do you?
Correct. Then why do you need the features of an AR15, instead of just a Derringer?
Again you demonstrate a failure to understand rights. It doesn't MATTER WHY I NEED IT. Your approval is not necessary.
But even though only one set of laws was broken, I'm sure you agree that killing one child is not as bad as killing many children, yes?
Not necessarily, but it doesn't matter. The law was ignored. Two laws won't be less ignored. Ten laws won't be less ignored.
Then, why make it easy to kill a room full of children, as opposed to one?
Nobody is talking about making it easy to kill a roomful of children, and it is hyperbole like yours that makes the discussion a waste of time. Anyone who disagrees with you on gun control is obviously in favor of the slaughter of little children on a regular basis. In your imagination.
Your fear that anyone who thinks the second amendment means exactly what it says and wants to retain basic rights will start shooting up the place just because they disagree with you is a problem that YOU have to deal with. It's irrational fears like this that make holding these discussions difficult, and it's not the fault of the English language.
At least you have switched from talking about needs to talking about rights. And are still wrong.
The president has no more inalienable rights than anyone else. He has more privileges and has authority to do some things, but these are not inalienable rights. They are not basic rights as protected by the Bill of Rights, they are functions of the office. When he leaves the office, what you claim are his extra rights go away. That can't happen if they truly are rights.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says my right to protection is less than his, and thus, by omission and the clear statement of the Constitution itself, my right to protection is the same as his.
Explain to me again how that should be just widely available to everyone who asks?
You know, one of the wonderful things about "rights" is that someone isn't supposed to need to justify why they want to exercise that right, they get to do it "just because". No amount of "I don't think you need that right" from other people is supposed to be a limit on you using that right.
"So, Mrs. Parks, just why do you want to sit up front in the bus today?" "So, Mr. Smith, why don't you want the cops to search your house? Got something to hide?" "So, Mr. Johnson, why don't you want to answer that question under oath, and why does the fifth amendment apply to your answer?"
Dead is dead. Someone killed by an AR15 is just as dead as someone killed by a.22 derringer. And, in most cases, the person killing a room full of school children was breaking the same laws as one killing one child at a time. So yes, let's make more laws, that will solve the problem.
the full second amendment includes a bit about a militia. You don't get to ignore parts of the constitution you don't like.
And you don't get to ignore simple English when trying to eviscerate basic rights. The clause about the militia is an explanatory clause, not a regulatory clause. I.e., it explains one reason (but not every reason) why the right that is specified in that amendment is important. It doesn't say "the right of militia members to keep and bear...", it says "the right" unqualified.
And when talking about the militia, in the day that was written, "the militia" meant, essentially, everyone.
Or do you think you can just get a fully-automatic weapon, or an anti-tank missile?
Actually, from your comment about the 2nd amendment applying only to a militia member, those are exactly the kinds of weapons that should be protected by the 2nd amendment. In any case, yes, according to a prima facie reading of the 2nd amendment, there is no limit on the arms with respect to automatic or semiautomatic, or size.
Three, licensing is not the same thing as a ban.
Licensing is exactly the same as a ban for anyone who fails to meet the arbitrary requirements for obtaining the license, and it is absolutely an infringement for everyone else.
You can put a UPS on your cable modem and router to help with a power outage,
That does nothing to power the equipment out in the street owned by the cable company.
but yes if the service you use is down it won't function, whether it be cable or POTS.
And the cable has gone out a lot more times than POTS has. And when the cable goes, if I have VoIP then my phone goes away too.
In my experience you will only have one POTS line coming to your location, you will not have redundant POTS lines coming from different networks.
And if you use VoIP over cell, then when one service dies you lose both. How does not having redundant copper change that?
But in most cases you connect to more than one tower.
Sorry, but no. And the last time the cable went out, the cell went out at the same time. Had I needed to make an emergency call, POTS would have saved the day.
Because of the risk and expense of operating a heater unattended, he wants to power it as little as possible. Since he needs to turn the heater on about an hour before he flies, and he lives about half an hour from the airport, this is the perfect application for a remotely controlled switch to operate a heater.
Because of the risk of running the heater unattended, he puts it on a remote controlled switch so he can run it unattended? Attached to a valuable thing like an airplane? That's filled with flammable stuff called "avgas"? And may be covered in fabric coated in dope?
Wow.
What happens when he's forgotten to attach the heater before he leaves and then turns it on remotely? Or it comes loose from the engine and is laying in the engine compartment against a spar or fabric cover?
Turn off a co-worker's alarm before a big event. Nasty.
If your co-worker has his alarm clock on a switched outlet of any kind, that says a lot about the level of intelligence your company requires for people doing your job.
The robocalls received by FCC employees is probably a pretty representative sample of the calls received by the population as a whole,
Oh, you didn't mean the FCC as an organization, you meant "every FCC employee". That's significantly different, and very much more likely to leak.
they might decide it isn't worth a prison sentence.
They're already committing identity theft or financial fraud which could subject them to a prison sentence, so I don't know why you think they'd be scared to try using an FCC fake credit card number. It isn't illegal for them to try debiting one, since they don't know it is fake, so where is the prison sentence coming from anyway?
You think it will be easier for the FCC to track a scammer who tries charging to a fake credit card number compared to one that tries charging to a real one? You think that using a fake number will mean the FCC has jurisdiction over the country that the scammer is operating from?
Land lines in general are not a better service. I've never seen a tree fall and break a wireless connection.
I've seen power failures take them out. You speak "in general", and then use one specific to prove it. Hmmm.
Comcast is considered one of the absolute worst cable companies out there.
Unless you are trying to tell me that there is a cable company that has TV, internet, and voice service, and the voice service will still function when the cable breaks, then my point still stands.
I am advocating using a cell phone and IP based calling.
The IP comes from somewhere, either cable or DSL for most folks. Running VoIP over the cell phone is kinda silly, and it still leaves your phone eggs all in one basket. If the cell tower stops working, you lose both cell phone and VoIP phone at the same time. Maybe in your "developing country" you'd have to do that because you can't get a solid landline connection, but doing something in the US because they do it that way in developing countries is a very weak argument.
I often get a phone number from them, which I'll immediately call with my cell phone,
Thus creating the appearance of a business relationship with them (you called them), and giving them your cell phone number to add to their list of spammable valid phone numbers. You're not winning the game, you're handing them the football on your own 1 yard line and walking away.
However, there are a couple robocall uses that are legal that I appreciate. A local school uses it to notify parents of unusual situations, like going on lock down or closing for inclement weather. I believe some cities use robocalling to warn residents of tornado dangers.
There is an emerging and expanding business in government triggered robocalls for public notifications. This is just one of the companies doing this. Sheriffs and emergency services managers love being able to push a figurative button to notify everyone in their jurisdiction of impending doom, like floods, ice storms, tornadoes, whatever. This makes most of the public quite happy that government is looking out for their safety, even if the government can't do anything to stop the impending doom. The announcement that this service was being implemented in our area also mentioned using it for Amber alerts and other such things.
I consider it a violation of the DNC list, and the last time this system was tested in our area I was on the phone to the official in charge instructing them to remove my number from their list and don't call again. And with the company that runs the service. I told them that I had plenty of other ways of being alerted to problems, and would have no use for any Amber alert information since the chances of me finding the lost child were so infinitesimal as to be considered zero. Both said there was no way to comply with that instruction.
The payback to the local government doing the testing was an absolute flood of calls from people who got home after work and found a test message on their answering machine, calling to find out what the danger was or why they were being called.
In one way - the best way is to have an answering machine saying "Please hold - your call will be answered in a moment" but then you just don't provide more and don't hang up until later. That will keep the robocall line blocked longer.
Nope. The predictive dialer that is in front of the robocall will simply hang up when it detects the message. You'll be blocking your own line longer, but not the scammer's.
Even developing countries are going wireless for phone service.
So? Developing countries are also paying low wages for sweatshop labor. They can't pay for better services, so they do what they can cheap.
Covers a larger area for less,
I don't care how large an area my home phone covers. It only has to work in my house.
The only good thing about a phone hooked up to copper is that they still work in a power outage.
And when the cable goes out for any reason, like a power outage somewhere else that takes out the distribution system. This sounds like a really good reason to keep it, to me. Maybe that because I deal with emergency services and preparedness on a regular basis, and know that "all my eggs in one basket" truly is dangerous.
Fake credit card numbers that report the cashing entity as a spammer. When they cash the card, the convict themselves. Nobody but the FCC knows which cards are real or fake.
Uhhh, then how do YOU know the fake number to tell someone who is a spammer, if only the FCC knows the fake numbers?
I find it interesting that there have been so many replies to this suggestion and all of them are ignoring it. Google Voice does indeed rock.
Why yes, I was so pleased when my ISP outsourced their email services and handed two years of archived email, and all future email, over to a company whose business is gathering and selling data about people. I will immediately switch my telephone service over to the same company, because perhaps there is something about me that they don't know yet.
Why not get rid of the telephone network?
Go entirely IP based.
In other words, get rid of a relatively reliable redundant communications medium.
As I asked the woman who helpfully "reviewed my account" to try to save me money, while I was calling to report the complete failure of my Comcast TV and network service, who told me that she could save me money if I switched to a "triple play bundle" (i.e. made Comcast my phone company, too): "So, you're suggesting to someone who is calling to report a complete outage of cable service that he switch his phone service to cable, so he can't call in to report a cable system failure?"
Every time my packet radio transmits, some of the cable TV channels go into "we've temporarily lost connection" mode. I think there is also a momentary network hiccup at the same time, but not long enough to cause disconnects. That's because a little RF has gotten into the digital cable and it shuts down. A little RF getting into my telephone service does almost nothing. The worst problem I ever had with RF was when there was a 10,000 W AM station two blocks away, and I could hear the station in the background on just one of my phones. The rest of the phones still worked fine. If I use the wrong splitter on my cable, I lose some of the higher frequency channels completely -- they just stop working. The digital signal doesn't degrade gracefully. If I pick up two phones at the same time, the volume goes down a bit but I can still make calls. Analog degrades in a way that still works, mostly.
"All your eggs in one basket" is a good thing to avoid, especially when that basket is relatively fragile and fails whenever the signal isn't just perfect enough.
Not a given with my local phone company. Are 900 et.al calls also free?
what would be the down side of this?
How many people are going to come and sit on your porch for any length of time?
It doesn't take more than a few seconds to make a 911 hangup call, which brings the cops to your door checking things out. How many of those happen before you take the phone off your porch?
If we're in "stuff on the porch" analogy mode, here's mine. One Halloween I decided I didn't want to be bothered by kids ringing my doorbell, but I also didn't want to be a scrooge. I left a box of various candy bars on my front step with a sign "take one" and watched.
The first group of kids took all the candy bars. I shook my head at the sad state of youth today, selfish bastards every one, while I refilled the box with what I had left.
The second group of kids took all the candy bars -- and the box. I went to bed.
"Defendant is capable of loading and firing a gun, convict them of manslaughter!"
Every one of your examples is missing the critical part. For example: "Defendant is capable of loading and firing a gun" OWNS A GUN, AND SOMEONE WAS SHOT WITH THAT GUN WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THAT GUN "convict them...".
Trying to claim that you set up protections to keep people from accessing CP AS A DEFENSE to your access point being used to access CP kind of requires that someone accessed CP using your access point and network. You don't need to try that defense if nobody accesses CP, or if someone stole your NAP and put it on their own network to access CP.
Given your kneejerk insulting attitude, I don't expect this will make sense to you, however.
Slashdot Mirror
The camera should switch all intersection traffic red if a reckless driver is about to enter a busy intersection on red.
This statement and the one about someone approaching "at a dangerous speed" show the problem with the idea. What is "a dangerous speed"? How does a camera know if someone is "about to enter" an intersection, with enough lead time to do anything constructive with the information? I mean, I can be stopped at an intersection with the front of my car 2 inches behind the stop line, and within a second I can be in the intersection. What will that camera do with that one second lead time?
Approaching "at a dangerous speed?" I can be fully stopped (zero speed) and still create a danger by entering the intersection just a couple of seconds later, or I can do a California stop and creep into the intersection -- still a hazard to others if they have the green.
A bad string isn't exceptional
Especially when the interpretation of that "bad string" is supposed to be CASE INSENSITIVE and the "exception" occurs because one character is upper case.
URI are defined here, and the part that deals with the "file:" or "http:" part (called the "scheme") says this:
Emphasis mine.
This is a case of a programmer implementing a feature defined in a standard and ignoring the standard when doing so. Not lazy, just ignorant and stupid. Just like the ignorant stupid programmers who write javascript email address verifiers that refuse to accept valid email addresses because they contain characters like '+'. Those programmers should be shot.
No, I understand rights perfectly fine. You, on the other hand, don't seem to understand what it takes for rights to actually exist in a society.
There is a difference between a right and the ability to exercise that right. That's what you don't understand. The right exists whether you like the reason someone wants to exercise it or not. Every time you say "I don't see why..." or "Why do you need...", you demonstrate that what you are talking about isn't a right, in your opinion.
However, it also makes no sense to argue that because there are law-breakers, there's no point to laws.
I didn't argue that. Did you? The argument that "it is already against the law to do X and people are ignoring the law and doing X anyway, so adding another law to make X illegal won't solve the problem" is considerably different than "there is a law, people break the law, thus there should be no laws at all." It's a pretty obvious difference, don't you think?
Except that I'm talking about something that actually happened, and that that event was facilitated by the existence of semi-automatic weapons. You can't just wish reality to go away.
And yet every gun control advocate is wishing that the reality of guns would go away -- and hoping that just one more law will make it happen. You're the one missing out on reality, I'm afraid. The reality is, bad people ignore the law. They will ignore the law if you make two laws, three laws, four laws, a dozen. The guy who steals a gun and goes to a school to shoot the defenseless children there is already breaking more than one law, of both man and God. Why is it "reality" to think that adding another law would keep him from doing it?
And, like I said, nobody is arguing in support of making it easy to kill a roomful of children. That's hyperbole that makes discussing this with you very difficult.
However, they do need justification for their existence
No. If they need justification to you for any reason, they are not rights, they are privileges. You just do not grasp the concept of basic rights, do you?
Correct. Then why do you need the features of an AR15, instead of just a Derringer?
Again you demonstrate a failure to understand rights. It doesn't MATTER WHY I NEED IT. Your approval is not necessary.
But even though only one set of laws was broken, I'm sure you agree that killing one child is not as bad as killing many children, yes?
Not necessarily, but it doesn't matter. The law was ignored. Two laws won't be less ignored. Ten laws won't be less ignored.
Then, why make it easy to kill a room full of children, as opposed to one?
Nobody is talking about making it easy to kill a roomful of children, and it is hyperbole like yours that makes the discussion a waste of time. Anyone who disagrees with you on gun control is obviously in favor of the slaughter of little children on a regular basis. In your imagination.
Your fear that anyone who thinks the second amendment means exactly what it says and wants to retain basic rights will start shooting up the place just because they disagree with you is a problem that YOU have to deal with. It's irrational fears like this that make holding these discussions difficult, and it's not the fault of the English language.
The president has no more inalienable rights than anyone else. He has more privileges and has authority to do some things, but these are not inalienable rights. They are not basic rights as protected by the Bill of Rights, they are functions of the office. When he leaves the office, what you claim are his extra rights go away. That can't happen if they truly are rights.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says my right to protection is less than his, and thus, by omission and the clear statement of the Constitution itself, my right to protection is the same as his.
Explain to me again how that should be just widely available to everyone who asks?
You know, one of the wonderful things about "rights" is that someone isn't supposed to need to justify why they want to exercise that right, they get to do it "just because". No amount of "I don't think you need that right" from other people is supposed to be a limit on you using that right.
"So, Mrs. Parks, just why do you want to sit up front in the bus today?" "So, Mr. Smith, why don't you want the cops to search your house? Got something to hide?" "So, Mr. Johnson, why don't you want to answer that question under oath, and why does the fifth amendment apply to your answer?"
Dead is dead. Someone killed by an AR15 is just as dead as someone killed by a .22 derringer. And, in most cases, the person killing a room full of school children was breaking the same laws as one killing one child at a time. So yes, let's make more laws, that will solve the problem.
the full second amendment includes a bit about a militia. You don't get to ignore parts of the constitution you don't like.
And you don't get to ignore simple English when trying to eviscerate basic rights. The clause about the militia is an explanatory clause, not a regulatory clause. I.e., it explains one reason (but not every reason) why the right that is specified in that amendment is important. It doesn't say "the right of militia members to keep and bear ...", it says "the right" unqualified.
And when talking about the militia, in the day that was written, "the militia" meant, essentially, everyone.
Or do you think you can just get a fully-automatic weapon, or an anti-tank missile?
Actually, from your comment about the 2nd amendment applying only to a militia member, those are exactly the kinds of weapons that should be protected by the 2nd amendment. In any case, yes, according to a prima facie reading of the 2nd amendment, there is no limit on the arms with respect to automatic or semiautomatic, or size.
Three, licensing is not the same thing as a ban.
Licensing is exactly the same as a ban for anyone who fails to meet the arbitrary requirements for obtaining the license, and it is absolutely an infringement for everyone else.
Mr. Spock is the one who has stardates.
You can put a UPS on your cable modem and router to help with a power outage,
That does nothing to power the equipment out in the street owned by the cable company.
but yes if the service you use is down it won't function, whether it be cable or POTS.
And the cable has gone out a lot more times than POTS has. And when the cable goes, if I have VoIP then my phone goes away too.
In my experience you will only have one POTS line coming to your location, you will not have redundant POTS lines coming from different networks.
And if you use VoIP over cell, then when one service dies you lose both. How does not having redundant copper change that?
But in most cases you connect to more than one tower.
Sorry, but no. And the last time the cable went out, the cell went out at the same time. Had I needed to make an emergency call, POTS would have saved the day.
Because of the risk and expense of operating a heater unattended, he wants to power it as little as possible. Since he needs to turn the heater on about an hour before he flies, and he lives about half an hour from the airport, this is the perfect application for a remotely controlled switch to operate a heater.
Because of the risk of running the heater unattended, he puts it on a remote controlled switch so he can run it unattended? Attached to a valuable thing like an airplane? That's filled with flammable stuff called "avgas"? And may be covered in fabric coated in dope?
Wow.
What happens when he's forgotten to attach the heater before he leaves and then turns it on remotely? Or it comes loose from the engine and is laying in the engine compartment against a spar or fabric cover?
Turn off a co-worker's alarm before a big event. Nasty.
If your co-worker has his alarm clock on a switched outlet of any kind, that says a lot about the level of intelligence your company requires for people doing your job.
The robocalls received by FCC employees is probably a pretty representative sample of the calls received by the population as a whole,
Oh, you didn't mean the FCC as an organization, you meant "every FCC employee". That's significantly different, and very much more likely to leak.
they might decide it isn't worth a prison sentence.
They're already committing identity theft or financial fraud which could subject them to a prison sentence, so I don't know why you think they'd be scared to try using an FCC fake credit card number. It isn't illegal for them to try debiting one, since they don't know it is fake, so where is the prison sentence coming from anyway?
You think it will be easier for the FCC to track a scammer who tries charging to a fake credit card number compared to one that tries charging to a real one? You think that using a fake number will mean the FCC has jurisdiction over the country that the scammer is operating from?
Land lines in general are not a better service. I've never seen a tree fall and break a wireless connection.
I've seen power failures take them out. You speak "in general", and then use one specific to prove it. Hmmm.
Comcast is considered one of the absolute worst cable companies out there.
Unless you are trying to tell me that there is a cable company that has TV, internet, and voice service, and the voice service will still function when the cable breaks, then my point still stands.
I am advocating using a cell phone and IP based calling.
The IP comes from somewhere, either cable or DSL for most folks. Running VoIP over the cell phone is kinda silly, and it still leaves your phone eggs all in one basket. If the cell tower stops working, you lose both cell phone and VoIP phone at the same time. Maybe in your "developing country" you'd have to do that because you can't get a solid landline connection, but doing something in the US because they do it that way in developing countries is a very weak argument.
I often get a phone number from them, which I'll immediately call with my cell phone,
Thus creating the appearance of a business relationship with them (you called them), and giving them your cell phone number to add to their list of spammable valid phone numbers. You're not winning the game, you're handing them the football on your own 1 yard line and walking away.
However, there are a couple robocall uses that are legal that I appreciate. A local school uses it to notify parents of unusual situations, like going on lock down or closing for inclement weather. I believe some cities use robocalling to warn residents of tornado dangers.
There is an emerging and expanding business in government triggered robocalls for public notifications. This is just one of the companies doing this. Sheriffs and emergency services managers love being able to push a figurative button to notify everyone in their jurisdiction of impending doom, like floods, ice storms, tornadoes, whatever. This makes most of the public quite happy that government is looking out for their safety, even if the government can't do anything to stop the impending doom. The announcement that this service was being implemented in our area also mentioned using it for Amber alerts and other such things.
I consider it a violation of the DNC list, and the last time this system was tested in our area I was on the phone to the official in charge instructing them to remove my number from their list and don't call again. And with the company that runs the service. I told them that I had plenty of other ways of being alerted to problems, and would have no use for any Amber alert information since the chances of me finding the lost child were so infinitesimal as to be considered zero. Both said there was no way to comply with that instruction.
The payback to the local government doing the testing was an absolute flood of calls from people who got home after work and found a test message on their answering machine, calling to find out what the danger was or why they were being called.
In one way - the best way is to have an answering machine saying "Please hold - your call will be answered in a moment" but then you just don't provide more and don't hang up until later. That will keep the robocall line blocked longer.
Nope. The predictive dialer that is in front of the robocall will simply hang up when it detects the message. You'll be blocking your own line longer, but not the scammer's.
You still connect to the phone system via wires?
That's why they call it "landline".
Even developing countries are going wireless for phone service.
So? Developing countries are also paying low wages for sweatshop labor. They can't pay for better services, so they do what they can cheap.
Covers a larger area for less,
I don't care how large an area my home phone covers. It only has to work in my house.
The only good thing about a phone hooked up to copper is that they still work in a power outage.
And when the cable goes out for any reason, like a power outage somewhere else that takes out the distribution system. This sounds like a really good reason to keep it, to me. Maybe that because I deal with emergency services and preparedness on a regular basis, and know that "all my eggs in one basket" truly is dangerous.
username@domain.tld works well
Yes, it's great. At giving someone who is trying to hack into a system a starting valid username to try.
Fake credit card numbers that report the cashing entity as a spammer. When they cash the card, the convict themselves. Nobody but the FCC knows which cards are real or fake.
Uhhh, then how do YOU know the fake number to tell someone who is a spammer, if only the FCC knows the fake numbers?
I find it interesting that there have been so many replies to this suggestion and all of them are ignoring it. Google Voice does indeed rock.
Why yes, I was so pleased when my ISP outsourced their email services and handed two years of archived email, and all future email, over to a company whose business is gathering and selling data about people. I will immediately switch my telephone service over to the same company, because perhaps there is something about me that they don't know yet.
Why not get rid of the telephone network? Go entirely IP based.
In other words, get rid of a relatively reliable redundant communications medium.
As I asked the woman who helpfully "reviewed my account" to try to save me money, while I was calling to report the complete failure of my Comcast TV and network service, who told me that she could save me money if I switched to a "triple play bundle" (i.e. made Comcast my phone company, too): "So, you're suggesting to someone who is calling to report a complete outage of cable service that he switch his phone service to cable, so he can't call in to report a cable system failure?"
Every time my packet radio transmits, some of the cable TV channels go into "we've temporarily lost connection" mode. I think there is also a momentary network hiccup at the same time, but not long enough to cause disconnects. That's because a little RF has gotten into the digital cable and it shuts down. A little RF getting into my telephone service does almost nothing. The worst problem I ever had with RF was when there was a 10,000 W AM station two blocks away, and I could hear the station in the background on just one of my phones. The rest of the phones still worked fine. If I use the wrong splitter on my cable, I lose some of the higher frequency channels completely -- they just stop working. The digital signal doesn't degrade gracefully. If I pick up two phones at the same time, the volume goes down a bit but I can still make calls. Analog degrades in a way that still works, mostly.
"All your eggs in one basket" is a good thing to avoid, especially when that basket is relatively fragile and fails whenever the signal isn't just perfect enough.
Shhh. Don't let Apple know or they'll try to patent it. With rounded corners.
Given nation wide long distance being free,
Not a given with my local phone company. Are 900 et.al calls also free?
what would be the down side of this? How many people are going to come and sit on your porch for any length of time?
It doesn't take more than a few seconds to make a 911 hangup call, which brings the cops to your door checking things out. How many of those happen before you take the phone off your porch?
If we're in "stuff on the porch" analogy mode, here's mine. One Halloween I decided I didn't want to be bothered by kids ringing my doorbell, but I also didn't want to be a scrooge. I left a box of various candy bars on my front step with a sign "take one" and watched. The first group of kids took all the candy bars. I shook my head at the sad state of youth today, selfish bastards every one, while I refilled the box with what I had left.
The second group of kids took all the candy bars -- and the box. I went to bed.
"Defendant is capable of loading and firing a gun, convict them of manslaughter!"
Every one of your examples is missing the critical part. For example: "Defendant is capable of loading and firing a gun" OWNS A GUN, AND SOMEONE WAS SHOT WITH THAT GUN WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THAT GUN "convict them ...".
Trying to claim that you set up protections to keep people from accessing CP AS A DEFENSE to your access point being used to access CP kind of requires that someone accessed CP using your access point and network. You don't need to try that defense if nobody accesses CP, or if someone stole your NAP and put it on their own network to access CP.
Given your kneejerk insulting attitude, I don't expect this will make sense to you, however.