I just hope this case finally sets a precedent that "unlimited" means UNLIMITED, you know, that they advertised! I am looking at you Comcast (and all your industry siblings).

To look at the contents on the iPhone, yes, the court said a warrant is required, but what about the cell tower info that tracks your location whenever the phone is on, i.e. "metadata"? Most people nowadays are always with their phone and their phones are always on, so effectively people are providing the GPS trackers for the police. It is the people that don't always carry their phone, or turn them off at key times, namely that know about this tracking potential, that force law enforcement to extraordinary measures like placing a special tracking device on the person, their car, or something they are know to carry.

Except in this case the email was sent to just one person, though the wrong one. The issue is that the sender started to type a name or email address, and Outlook helpfully autocompleted the address (with the wrong one) which the sender then used.

I used to have this happen to me a lot at my last company where there was another person with a similar name, except my name came before his alphabetically so the autocomplete would helpfully fill in my name for people when they started typing his, and they would click send without ever realizing they were sending to the wrong person. I kept having to forward his mail to him.

The Crown may lose the immediate case, but if they do, give Parliament a little time and they will "fix" that problem, so for the public it is lose-lose.

These companies are like a hydra. Cut off one head and one or more grow back. That is why the FTC wants to find a better solution that can find and block them.

I have also still been getting calls from many scam companies. When Rachel from Credit Card Services calls, if I have time I press one and engage the person. Sometimes I ask them for their company's name, then address, which normally results in hangup. Once I had a person who must have been new and who seemed genuine give me a real address that was an old office building in NY, but normally if they don't hang up at the question they say something like they aren't allowed to give that out. When asked for their contact number, they typically say it is the one my phone is showing, but I had one guy recently give me a number that when I looked it up was the Chase VISA 800 number. I have also at times started the conversation by telling the person that I was confused since the call said it was from Rachel, and I had read the police had arrested her - followed soon by them hanging up. I sometimes ask them if they are calling from my bank, which causes half to hangup, and the other half to say or imply yes they are, which causes them great trouble with my following questions. It always ends the same though where they discover they have been recognized or backed into a corner and they break the connection. They don't seem to learn though that my number isn't worth calling and the calls keep coming.

For the others like the medical device companies where I "was referred by my doctor or family member", I ask them who referred me, or challenge them that since I share the phone I want to make sure they got the right person and what the name is that they have, which of course they can't answer. As others have said, if I have the time when they call, I want to keep a live person on the line for a while to increase their costs, and to some degree provide entertainment for me. The best tools the consumers currently have to fight these scams is to make it cost more than the scammers get out of it.

Could you use multiple independent lasers all aimed simultaneously at the same target to increase the effective yield to a power greater than what a single laser could achieve?

When people try to blame events on one side even though both side are to blame, then yes, pointing out the violations of what they consider the "good" side matter to help people see reality. In my post that you responded to I didn't make a claim about who started it. In fact I was responding to a poster who clearly DID label a party as being the one who started it, by listing examples that predated it of similar actions. I however do understand that a person could take my earliest counterexample, either Clinton or Truman depending on post, and say I was trying to blame them, which I was not. There is no clear beginning to this, unless you are a fundamentalist and say it was Eve looking around to see if anyone was watching before picking the fruit.

Where did anyone here say that?

Probably unlike most here, I am, just not in a way Slashdot readers can see.

Sorry for the typo, EO12333 was signed end of 1981, by Reagan within his first year after taking office.

CIA was created in 1947 and the NSA in 1952, both under Truman, a Democrat. Due to domestic spying abuses (by both sides), Executive Order 12333 was passed to curtail it in 1991 by Reagan, a Republican.

Both sides have used and abused their authorities regarding monitoring of US person, though be careful when trying to throw stones. The issues you bring up did not first appear under Bush, but each president has had the power to address it, and so far I only see Reagan made a decent attempt at trying to stop it.

Where I live, in small claims court the filing fees are automatically added onto the judgement amount if the plaintiff wins. The fees run $35 to $80 per case depending on amount being sued for. Other costs, like time for the plaintiff to go to court, travel, making copies of documents, etc., however are not claimable. Not sure about fees to have the defendant served.

Hopefully that was a typo. It is called 419 because that is the section of Nigerian law that makes it illegal.

That was an editing error, not a spelling error, since I changed the sentence structure and failed to correct the syntax. Still my error though, and especially tough for me since I try hard to get my contractions and homonyms correct. Thank you Russ. (Bows head in shame)

How could they be sure it wasn't an exhibit attendee. Attendees don't sign agreements before entering that promise not to use personal WiFi, so what if the hotel stomped on them? What about someone physically outside the convention space, but close enough that due to signal reflections the hotel equipment decided was inside the hall? Is stomping on them OK since they seemed to be in the hall? I am sure there are more examples where innocent people could get targetted by such a device.

Just like you did. It Marriott, not Mariott. And the summary spelled it Marriot, not Mariot as you wrote.

In partial fairness to the Slashdot editor, the linked BBC article has the title "Marriot hotels do U-turn over wi-fi hotspot blocks", and the first use of the hotel's name in the article uses the same misspelling. Later uses in the article get it right though. Still confused as to how a BBC article got this so wrong, especially since it has both the right and wrong spelling in the same article. Your misspelling on the other hand has no excuse.

True, but the flesh-and-blood player faces the same probability decisions as the robot so there is no advantage after a large number of hands. The real difference here is the robot could potentially read the live players body language to gain additional information that it incorporates into its decisions, but the reverse isn't true.