You miss the same thing the parent does; they have staff that divide it up, read the parts, and can explain the parts. Spending the time to pass all the words briefly in front of your eyes wouldn't prepare you to vote on it, because there will be lots of details that have to be "worked out" by experts in the various areas of civics affected. What is important is that advisors who are experts in specific areas of law or policy have had detailed working discussions with the staff below them that have read those portions, and have examined the portions that are significant or could have multiple readings.
Pelosi was making an existential comment. You not only mangle what she actually said, you give a completely erroneous reading. What she actually said was that there are lots of proposed bills, and the proposal is being amended continuously. The idea that there is "a bill" before it is voted on is silly, because it is changing from one minute to the next. Reading it doesn't help, because what did you read? Something that changed while you were reading it. Once something comes up for a vote, that is when you can't add more stuff to it; if it passes, then you could read it. This works because both houses of Congress have to pass it, and then discuss and vote on any differences, and then it also has to go to the President. The type of complaint you make is just an "insult from ignorance" that disappears if you attempt to understand what was said.
No, it will have to go through another round of negotiation between the House and Senate because they didn't pass it as its own bill. Once the joint committee decides they both agree on what the combined result is, then it goes to the President. It is quite possible for the Senate to still block this. Unlikely.
The President can easily veto this if he wants to, because everybody already knows that Congress plays these games at that the President might have to smack them down. The President has over double the approval rating of Congress, after all. History proves that the American people will rightfully blame Congress for not passing a clean budget when needed.
As to the complaints, it is sad that the most prominent complaint people can think of is that it will "allow companies to share user info with the government." That makes it sound like this law does nothing. Companies own the data they collect about their users in the US, and they already are allowed to share it with the government when they decide to. If that is the best complaint people have, why should I care? Why do people who claim to care, claim to care? Because it will let things that already happen, continue to happen in the same way? What??!
The linked engadget article author doesn't know. First they claim the full text of the bill was included, then in the next paragraph it talks about there being differences. Indeed, they link to an article that if they had read, they would know it wasn't the "full text" but rather an alternate text. The House and Senate have actually both already passed versions of this bill. The Senate version had a lot more protections, and was weaker than the older House bill. This House version is further from the Senate version than their last one. As a bill on its own, it has no meaning. This will not impact the negotiations with the Senate over a compromise in any positive way.
This is probably more of an attempt by the House to submarine the budget deal. Expect the joint committee on the budget bill to toss that part out, since the Senate version of the budget bill didn't have that stuff. It can only go directly to the President if they pass the same bill. Otherwise, they have to sit down with each other and figure out what they're actually sending.
In general I think he's a reckless moron who should be arrested for having done road tests of this thing without any approval, and without any engineering at all! No, DIY knowhow isn't engineering. That said, I think the part about the 21" screen was probably a joke. Har Har Har.
The world will still be here, even when here is over there. Rocks aren't subject to the existential boundaries of life. Non-living things must always continue to Be, for energy is conserved and they are but the sum of their parts.
I suspect you're going to fail to convert energy production to sustainable sources without computers.
As for moral concerns, just switch to the term "Free Software" instead of "Open Source" and you'll find the people that are trying to use it to save the world.
If it says "open source" then people aren't trying to save the world, they're just trying to establish personal freedom.
Makes as much sense in text as the freakin' question. "What's the biggest" and then "that aren't getting the recognition they deserve?" Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, if it isn't getting the recognition it deserves, it isn't the "biggest" this year. Maybe next year, when they're better appreciated.
Personally, I don't think anything significant happened this year in open source. Almost everything of note was an incremental improvement unworthy of an isolated shout-out separated from the context of the use case.
Indeed, there is almost no difference between using index cards and computers here, because the cost of the system is in making it so that the local authorities can call up the FAA and check on licenses. That will be handled mostly by humans, over a telephone. It is slightly better; they can answer after a few keystrokes instead of spending 30 seconds using a filing cabinet.
These are the level of the complaints; not even cognizant of the basic implications of their own words. Indeed, you quickly appeal (explicitly!) to accusing people with different policy positions of not knowing what "age" we live in, and yet do lack basic information about how filing cards or computerized records are utilized. Perhaps people with different opinions have them for real reasons that they themselves explain in their comments, and not the idiotic hand-waving reasons you invent for them?
No need for a not-equals construct when you're not even comparing to what I said. Come on, can you not read, or are you intentionally making a dishonest implication?
Did you know that flying without line-of-sight is indeed flying by instrument, unless you're just flying blind and not even navigating?
You obviously didn't understand the meat of my comment, either.
Do you know why you don't need an instrument rating under certain nighttime situations? You obviously don't, or you wouldn't think it is an applicable exception here. The reason is that the pilot is actually inside the aircraft, and any man-made structures above a certain height will have flashing lights, and the airports are all marked with flashing lights too. So you DO have line-of-sight control, even at night, as long as there is no intervening weather.
Does a drone pilot have that? Are man-made structures at the flight altitude of a drone all visually marked to be seen at night from the air? Do the takeoff and landing areas have extensive lighting built to FAA-mandated standards and tested for compliance? If weather permits, can the pilot see out of the window?
No, no, no, and no. You absolutely do not have line-of-sight control at night with a drone. You can't see out the window; you're not even in the craft. You sure don't have a runway or helipad to take off and land from. Almost nothing will be lit at your flight altitude; even if you were in the craft, you wouldn't be able to reliably see obstacles.
You refer to lights as marvelous gadgets, but they are not magic spells that protect flying objects. You made no attempt to apply the things you wanted to talk about to the actual context at hand. You're so far off, I'm not even convinced we're talking about the same lights. Maybe all the people shining lasers at the airplanes are refreshing the magic and keeping them aloft. There is just no way to tell wtf you're talking about.
The answer was in my comment, I guess you skipped over it.
The National Guard are a State militia under the command of the Governor when not deployed overseas. They also help with weather management, firefighting, search and rescue, etc.
While the patrol I described was for the reason described, a role shared with the Coast Goard and County Sheriff, the helicopters stationed in urban Portland also fly rescue on Mount Hood. It is very dangerous, nobody else can do it; standard air ambulances are not going to load you while hovering over a slope at 10,000 ft in unstable air next to the Columbia River Gorge with its sudden high winds. You would be waiting for hikers to carry you out.
The Coast Guard air patrols don't use a combat aircraft, they use a water rescue craft. Their armed patrols use zodiac-style boats. The Sheriff uses what appears to be a converted bass boat.
The scariest thing isnt the five dollars, its the onerous rules... not allowed to fly it at night anymore I see.
Oh, gosh! Did you know that most humans don't have your super-power of being able to see in the dark? Does your aircraft have flight instruments? Are you qualified for flying it by instrument?
If you looking for onerous rules, wow. That sounds like a very sensible rule to me. Ruined my plans to prank some churches on Christmas, but interfering with mischief is the government's job.
I suspect the complainers are mostly living in 3rd world countries and don't even realize that $5 is between 30 minutes and 1 hour of work at the minimum wage in the USA.
If it was 2 days of wages, it would be more understandable to complain; after all, what sort of future reserves ownership of toy aircraft only for the working class, and excludes the unemployed and homeless entirely?!
a 250g drone can often fly a lot higher than a giant drone operated inside of a domed stadium.;)
Which one presents a greater threat to air ambulances?
They mention the Portland Trailblazers, I lived right across the river from their stadium for a year. Portland is a seaport, and the Coast Guard takes off from downtown near the stadium. Their standard patrol pattern brings them right over the stadium, because Portland has numerous bridges that have to be patrolled and there is one right outside the stadium. The Oregon Air National Guard also flies armed blackhawks on bridge patrol duties. When I lived there my apartment was in the exact "right" spot so that when the National Guard did their patrols, the machine gun hanging out the door would be pointed at my balcony for over half of their patrol circle. I'd be sitting there staring up at the barrel thinking, "OK guys, nobody slip!" I doubt it was loaded, but it was memorable. Do I want that helecopter to crash into my living room?! There are also lots of news helicopters, some of which take off from downtown and are within the range of a 250g drone on every single flight.
So yeah. a 250g drone flown outside the Blazer's stadium is a serious potential hazard to the community. And the giant monster drone they fly around inside is only a serious potential hazard to people participating in the same activity where it is being used, people who can consent to the risk or leave.
I can even fly it indoors in a private space with no worry of a fine, even if they find out. Federal rules don't even apply until I expose it to the sky, or some other public or federally controlled space, or use it for commerce.
Reckless endangerment has a very high bar. It requires the act to not only be reckless, but also to endanger somebody. The goal here is to be able to bring enforcement at an earlier stage when the behavior is already reckless, but has not yet actually endangered somebody in the narrowest legal sense. For example, if you're flying over humans in a situation where a mechanical error would likely cause injuries to bystanders, that is not reckless endangerment unless the device actually malfunctions. The general case does indeed wait until somebody gets hurt to mete out punishment.
Like with driving a car; if you're all over the road recklessly, but don't hit anybody, that is reckless driving; a relatively minor offense. If your intent and actions are exactly the same, but somebody swerves out of your way and crashes,(but doesn't get hurt) now it is reckless endangerment because somebody was actually endangered.
You can't bring endangerment charges because somebody simply could have been hurt. They have to have almost been actually hurt or hurt a little bit in a situation that could have hurt them much worse.
Looking at the complaint you're signing on to, it seems that the claim is actually that everyone(-ish) doing it is ruining it for the small minority who were already doing it.
Your conclusions are exactly wrong. Based on the claim, the masses are ruining it for the elite is what you're "literally" claiming.
And it is true, sortof, if paying a $5 registration counts as "ruining" a hobby that cost more than that for one launch and wasn't really mobile enough to get you in trouble without risking loss of your expensive equipment.
Perhaps the solution is to increase the registration fee so that it can be suitably elite again?
Sounds like a money grab to figure out how to really handle it later
LOL what is the average wage in your neighborhood, $2/day? News flash, they spent more money writing these rules than they will receive in registrations in the next decade. And they have to spend additional money just to maintain the list.
... and then when they interview the person and find them believably bewildered, they'll check the payment for the registration and find out it was a prepaid credit card and the registration was done from a different IP. Then they cross reference the cell phone signals inside the store where you used the credit vending machine with the ones near the IP address. Then they come to arrest you.
They will literally not get in trouble, beyond the hassle of having to be interviewed a couple times. Proving it wasn't them will be easy, and the investigators will quickly come to that conclusion on their own.
Cops are mostly idiots, but don't assume that applies to federal agents.
OK, so philosophy is worthless, because you took classes and didn't learn about argument from authority? And you learned from these illustrious teachers that philosophy is the art of "making the annoying questions?"
You haven't convinced me that you understand even the parts you're choosing to talk about. Maybe you should follow Feynman's lead and just admit you took the class, passed, and yet have no idea what it was about?
You can't claim lock-in without making an argument about difficulty of switching to a competitor.
Here, you can replace any individual device with a commodity generic and everything works the same. It doesn't plug, but why does the plug create lock-in? An expansion port traditionally is discussed in the context of lock-in because when you buy those peripherals then you also have to keep buying computers that have the port. So that is clear lock-in, because without the port you can't use the devices.
In this case, you only need the port for the devices of the same type because they share a common power supply. There is no lock-in because you can take one of the devices out of the stack, and the things above and below it now plug into each other, and the replacement device will already have its own power supply.
A special keyboard plug would create lock-in because the keyboard would be useless without it. But this is just a special power plug, something that external devices already don't share. You can replace any component with the mainstream generic, and none of your devices have been bricked.
Lock-in has to have a negative consequence. That consequence is the "lock." The only consequence here would be re-organizing your travel bag, which is already to be expected when replacing devices.
If there is one for free, and one for $2, and they have the exact same capabilities, you haven't convinced me that it is worth even $2.
The reality is that when you're trying to add higher frequencies in a small device like this, it can actually end up being months of redesign by a whole team. And the product isn't even proven. The nonsense people speculated about interference between the radio and the speaker is silly, but managing interference within the circuit can be difficult with gigabit switching speeds. You will likely have to worry about the exact layout of the board traces. You will likely have to take up the time of some senior engineers for that. If the feature has no value, would cost $1 more just in parts, and $250,000 to develop... I just don't see the business case. Especially when, there is no use case for that. 100mbps is way faster than fast enough for an individual host with their own dedicated router and switch, and it doesn't create any difficult requirements for the board designer.
The reason that 100mbps is too slow for general office use is entirely that you have multiple hosts on the same subnet, and ethernet efficiency goes down when utilization goes up. If you're at 50% capacity you're already wanting to upgrade. If it was a token ring or similar at 50% capacity it would have the exact same throughput as it did at 1%. Individual ethernet hosts are perfectly happy at 100mbps unless they are a server. There is no use case described for this device where you could even get to 50% capacity.
I didn't state the converse, or the inverse, I stated the most obvious corollary according to the context. Feel free to try again. It is not clear from your first response that you even understand the vocabulary being used.
You keep repeating the word "abuse," but it is not abuse of the process if the process includes the flow of legal documents from local council, police, neighbors, etc. If it was in fact abuse of process there would be extensive documentation and negative consequences.
Did you not read the words I wrote that said, "If the police were showing up and putting heat on the other guy, it sounds like he had his paperwork in order and understood the process." Do you not comprehend English words? Do you have a counter-argument, or are you just going to cover your eyes and ears and reply while pretending you didn't hear what you're replying to? Your claims of abuse of process were strongly refuted.
Slashdot Mirror
You miss the same thing the parent does; they have staff that divide it up, read the parts, and can explain the parts. Spending the time to pass all the words briefly in front of your eyes wouldn't prepare you to vote on it, because there will be lots of details that have to be "worked out" by experts in the various areas of civics affected. What is important is that advisors who are experts in specific areas of law or policy have had detailed working discussions with the staff below them that have read those portions, and have examined the portions that are significant or could have multiple readings.
Pelosi was making an existential comment. You not only mangle what she actually said, you give a completely erroneous reading. What she actually said was that there are lots of proposed bills, and the proposal is being amended continuously. The idea that there is "a bill" before it is voted on is silly, because it is changing from one minute to the next. Reading it doesn't help, because what did you read? Something that changed while you were reading it. Once something comes up for a vote, that is when you can't add more stuff to it; if it passes, then you could read it. This works because both houses of Congress have to pass it, and then discuss and vote on any differences, and then it also has to go to the President. The type of complaint you make is just an "insult from ignorance" that disappears if you attempt to understand what was said.
No, it will have to go through another round of negotiation between the House and Senate because they didn't pass it as its own bill. Once the joint committee decides they both agree on what the combined result is, then it goes to the President. It is quite possible for the Senate to still block this. Unlikely.
The President can easily veto this if he wants to, because everybody already knows that Congress plays these games at that the President might have to smack them down. The President has over double the approval rating of Congress, after all. History proves that the American people will rightfully blame Congress for not passing a clean budget when needed.
As to the complaints, it is sad that the most prominent complaint people can think of is that it will "allow companies to share user info with the government." That makes it sound like this law does nothing. Companies own the data they collect about their users in the US, and they already are allowed to share it with the government when they decide to. If that is the best complaint people have, why should I care? Why do people who claim to care, claim to care? Because it will let things that already happen, continue to happen in the same way? What??!
The linked engadget article author doesn't know. First they claim the full text of the bill was included, then in the next paragraph it talks about there being differences. Indeed, they link to an article that if they had read, they would know it wasn't the "full text" but rather an alternate text. The House and Senate have actually both already passed versions of this bill. The Senate version had a lot more protections, and was weaker than the older House bill. This House version is further from the Senate version than their last one. As a bill on its own, it has no meaning. This will not impact the negotiations with the Senate over a compromise in any positive way.
This is probably more of an attempt by the House to submarine the budget deal. Expect the joint committee on the budget bill to toss that part out, since the Senate version of the budget bill didn't have that stuff. It can only go directly to the President if they pass the same bill. Otherwise, they have to sit down with each other and figure out what they're actually sending.
In general I think he's a reckless moron who should be arrested for having done road tests of this thing without any approval, and without any engineering at all! No, DIY knowhow isn't engineering. That said, I think the part about the 21" screen was probably a joke. Har Har Har.
The world will still be here, even when here is over there. Rocks aren't subject to the existential boundaries of life. Non-living things must always continue to Be, for energy is conserved and they are but the sum of their parts.
I suspect you're going to fail to convert energy production to sustainable sources without computers.
As for moral concerns, just switch to the term "Free Software" instead of "Open Source" and you'll find the people that are trying to use it to save the world.
If it says "open source" then people aren't trying to save the world, they're just trying to establish personal freedom.
Sure, it is just a framework without any meat, but if AI people adopt it then it might be something commonly used.
The actual algorithms used with it would still be the important part in any use case, though.
Makes as much sense in text as the freakin' question. "What's the biggest" and then "that aren't getting the recognition they deserve?" Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, if it isn't getting the recognition it deserves, it isn't the "biggest" this year. Maybe next year, when they're better appreciated.
Personally, I don't think anything significant happened this year in open source. Almost everything of note was an incremental improvement unworthy of an isolated shout-out separated from the context of the use case.
Indeed, there is almost no difference between using index cards and computers here, because the cost of the system is in making it so that the local authorities can call up the FAA and check on licenses. That will be handled mostly by humans, over a telephone. It is slightly better; they can answer after a few keystrokes instead of spending 30 seconds using a filing cabinet.
These are the level of the complaints; not even cognizant of the basic implications of their own words. Indeed, you quickly appeal (explicitly!) to accusing people with different policy positions of not knowing what "age" we live in, and yet do lack basic information about how filing cards or computerized records are utilized. Perhaps people with different opinions have them for real reasons that they themselves explain in their comments, and not the idiotic hand-waving reasons you invent for them?
No need for a not-equals construct when you're not even comparing to what I said. Come on, can you not read, or are you intentionally making a dishonest implication?
Did you know that flying without line-of-sight is indeed flying by instrument, unless you're just flying blind and not even navigating?
You obviously didn't understand the meat of my comment, either.
Do you know why you don't need an instrument rating under certain nighttime situations? You obviously don't, or you wouldn't think it is an applicable exception here. The reason is that the pilot is actually inside the aircraft, and any man-made structures above a certain height will have flashing lights, and the airports are all marked with flashing lights too. So you DO have line-of-sight control, even at night, as long as there is no intervening weather.
Does a drone pilot have that? Are man-made structures at the flight altitude of a drone all visually marked to be seen at night from the air? Do the takeoff and landing areas have extensive lighting built to FAA-mandated standards and tested for compliance? If weather permits, can the pilot see out of the window?
No, no, no, and no. You absolutely do not have line-of-sight control at night with a drone. You can't see out the window; you're not even in the craft. You sure don't have a runway or helipad to take off and land from. Almost nothing will be lit at your flight altitude; even if you were in the craft, you wouldn't be able to reliably see obstacles.
You refer to lights as marvelous gadgets, but they are not magic spells that protect flying objects. You made no attempt to apply the things you wanted to talk about to the actual context at hand. You're so far off, I'm not even convinced we're talking about the same lights. Maybe all the people shining lasers at the airplanes are refreshing the magic and keeping them aloft. There is just no way to tell wtf you're talking about.
The answer was in my comment, I guess you skipped over it.
The National Guard are a State militia under the command of the Governor when not deployed overseas. They also help with weather management, firefighting, search and rescue, etc.
While the patrol I described was for the reason described, a role shared with the Coast Goard and County Sheriff, the helicopters stationed in urban Portland also fly rescue on Mount Hood. It is very dangerous, nobody else can do it; standard air ambulances are not going to load you while hovering over a slope at 10,000 ft in unstable air next to the Columbia River Gorge with its sudden high winds. You would be waiting for hikers to carry you out.
The Coast Guard air patrols don't use a combat aircraft, they use a water rescue craft. Their armed patrols use zodiac-style boats. The Sheriff uses what appears to be a converted bass boat.
The scariest thing isnt the five dollars, its the onerous rules... not allowed to fly it at night anymore I see.
Oh, gosh! Did you know that most humans don't have your super-power of being able to see in the dark? Does your aircraft have flight instruments? Are you qualified for flying it by instrument?
If you looking for onerous rules, wow. That sounds like a very sensible rule to me. Ruined my plans to prank some churches on Christmas, but interfering with mischief is the government's job.
I suspect the complainers are mostly living in 3rd world countries and don't even realize that $5 is between 30 minutes and 1 hour of work at the minimum wage in the USA.
If it was 2 days of wages, it would be more understandable to complain; after all, what sort of future reserves ownership of toy aircraft only for the working class, and excludes the unemployed and homeless entirely?!
So... bucolic country scenes of boyhood have gone away, because some toys require the parents to register them first and pay $5?
Stop whining about the gubermint and register Jr's drone so he can go out and play, jeeze.
a 250g drone can often fly a lot higher than a giant drone operated inside of a domed stadium. ;)
Which one presents a greater threat to air ambulances?
They mention the Portland Trailblazers, I lived right across the river from their stadium for a year. Portland is a seaport, and the Coast Guard takes off from downtown near the stadium. Their standard patrol pattern brings them right over the stadium, because Portland has numerous bridges that have to be patrolled and there is one right outside the stadium. The Oregon Air National Guard also flies armed blackhawks on bridge patrol duties. When I lived there my apartment was in the exact "right" spot so that when the National Guard did their patrols, the machine gun hanging out the door would be pointed at my balcony for over half of their patrol circle. I'd be sitting there staring up at the barrel thinking, "OK guys, nobody slip!" I doubt it was loaded, but it was memorable. Do I want that helecopter to crash into my living room?! There are also lots of news helicopters, some of which take off from downtown and are within the range of a 250g drone on every single flight.
So yeah. a 250g drone flown outside the Blazer's stadium is a serious potential hazard to the community. And the giant monster drone they fly around inside is only a serious potential hazard to people participating in the same activity where it is being used, people who can consent to the risk or leave.
I can even fly it indoors in a private space with no worry of a fine, even if they find out. Federal rules don't even apply until I expose it to the sky, or some other public or federally controlled space, or use it for commerce.
Reckless endangerment has a very high bar. It requires the act to not only be reckless, but also to endanger somebody. The goal here is to be able to bring enforcement at an earlier stage when the behavior is already reckless, but has not yet actually endangered somebody in the narrowest legal sense. For example, if you're flying over humans in a situation where a mechanical error would likely cause injuries to bystanders, that is not reckless endangerment unless the device actually malfunctions. The general case does indeed wait until somebody gets hurt to mete out punishment.
Like with driving a car; if you're all over the road recklessly, but don't hit anybody, that is reckless driving; a relatively minor offense. If your intent and actions are exactly the same, but somebody swerves out of your way and crashes,(but doesn't get hurt) now it is reckless endangerment because somebody was actually endangered.
You can't bring endangerment charges because somebody simply could have been hurt. They have to have almost been actually hurt or hurt a little bit in a situation that could have hurt them much worse.
literally ruined it for everyone.
Looking at the complaint you're signing on to, it seems that the claim is actually that everyone(-ish) doing it is ruining it for the small minority who were already doing it.
Your conclusions are exactly wrong. Based on the claim, the masses are ruining it for the elite is what you're "literally" claiming.
And it is true, sortof, if paying a $5 registration counts as "ruining" a hobby that cost more than that for one launch and wasn't really mobile enough to get you in trouble without risking loss of your expensive equipment.
Perhaps the solution is to increase the registration fee so that it can be suitably elite again?
Sounds like a money grab to figure out how to really handle it later
LOL what is the average wage in your neighborhood, $2/day? News flash, they spent more money writing these rules than they will receive in registrations in the next decade. And they have to spend additional money just to maintain the list.
If you know someone's SSN, you can fuck them over for life just by filing a tax return declaring a couple million dollars of gambling winnings.
No, only for a few years at most.
... and then when they interview the person and find them believably bewildered, they'll check the payment for the registration and find out it was a prepaid credit card and the registration was done from a different IP. Then they cross reference the cell phone signals inside the store where you used the credit vending machine with the ones near the IP address. Then they come to arrest you.
They will literally not get in trouble, beyond the hassle of having to be interviewed a couple times. Proving it wasn't them will be easy, and the investigators will quickly come to that conclusion on their own.
Cops are mostly idiots, but don't assume that applies to federal agents.
OK, so philosophy is worthless, because you took classes and didn't learn about argument from authority? And you learned from these illustrious teachers that philosophy is the art of "making the annoying questions?"
You haven't convinced me that you understand even the parts you're choosing to talk about. Maybe you should follow Feynman's lead and just admit you took the class, passed, and yet have no idea what it was about?
You can't claim lock-in without making an argument about difficulty of switching to a competitor.
Here, you can replace any individual device with a commodity generic and everything works the same. It doesn't plug, but why does the plug create lock-in? An expansion port traditionally is discussed in the context of lock-in because when you buy those peripherals then you also have to keep buying computers that have the port. So that is clear lock-in, because without the port you can't use the devices.
In this case, you only need the port for the devices of the same type because they share a common power supply. There is no lock-in because you can take one of the devices out of the stack, and the things above and below it now plug into each other, and the replacement device will already have its own power supply.
A special keyboard plug would create lock-in because the keyboard would be useless without it. But this is just a special power plug, something that external devices already don't share. You can replace any component with the mainstream generic, and none of your devices have been bricked.
Lock-in has to have a negative consequence. That consequence is the "lock." The only consequence here would be re-organizing your travel bag, which is already to be expected when replacing devices.
If there is one for free, and one for $2, and they have the exact same capabilities, you haven't convinced me that it is worth even $2.
The reality is that when you're trying to add higher frequencies in a small device like this, it can actually end up being months of redesign by a whole team. And the product isn't even proven. The nonsense people speculated about interference between the radio and the speaker is silly, but managing interference within the circuit can be difficult with gigabit switching speeds. You will likely have to worry about the exact layout of the board traces. You will likely have to take up the time of some senior engineers for that. If the feature has no value, would cost $1 more just in parts, and $250,000 to develop... I just don't see the business case. Especially when, there is no use case for that. 100mbps is way faster than fast enough for an individual host with their own dedicated router and switch, and it doesn't create any difficult requirements for the board designer.
The reason that 100mbps is too slow for general office use is entirely that you have multiple hosts on the same subnet, and ethernet efficiency goes down when utilization goes up. If you're at 50% capacity you're already wanting to upgrade. If it was a token ring or similar at 50% capacity it would have the exact same throughput as it did at 1%. Individual ethernet hosts are perfectly happy at 100mbps unless they are a server. There is no use case described for this device where you could even get to 50% capacity.
I didn't state the converse, or the inverse, I stated the most obvious corollary according to the context. Feel free to try again. It is not clear from your first response that you even understand the vocabulary being used.
You keep repeating the word "abuse," but it is not abuse of the process if the process includes the flow of legal documents from local council, police, neighbors, etc. If it was in fact abuse of process there would be extensive documentation and negative consequences.
Did you not read the words I wrote that said, "If the police were showing up and putting heat on the other guy, it sounds like he had his paperwork in order and understood the process." Do you not comprehend English words? Do you have a counter-argument, or are you just going to cover your eyes and ears and reply while pretending you didn't hear what you're replying to? Your claims of abuse of process were strongly refuted.