Of course, you forgot to mention that the actual levels/concentrations of the will be insignificant with respect to human health risk for almost that entire area in a relatively very short period. (Actually, it is already safe in most areas, but logistics, conservatism, and validation efforts all prevent a quicker return). And, have you ever even thought about the relative risks associated compared to the overall benefits we have gained from offsetting "mind-numbing" masses of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. Or is your whole position based on your fear of radiation, lack of risk perception accuracy due to the ongoing anti-nuke FUD, which the oil and gas industry thank who wholeheartedly for supporting.

So, it seems you think its quite OK for those entities that decided tsunami walls were sufficient protection for towns and villages, and those that designated safe elevations for villages and told people it was OK to build their homes, not to worry, and turned out to be wrong.... to not be held to account, even though many lives were lost due to that mistake. And somehow, only the nuclear site presented a case of negligence and collusion. Despite the fact that the actual plant itself saved the lives of some people that were able to make it to the main plant structures in time. Yeah, its OK for thousands to die and lose their loved ones, but very small portion of land requiring remediation for a few decades is your outrage.

Your selective outrage is quite telling.

So, what will Netflix do when a customer can't get access to the data that they paid Comcast to deliver to said customer?

I see fur in the future.

Making the phone useless is what I meant by lowering the return on theft. So your are saying the same thing as "3) Steal less as the return is not worth the effort."

Don't take it too seriously. I should have said "possible". I was made somewhat in jest.

1. Not understanding the intent in how I used 'theory', despite the incorrectness, speaks to your communication skills.

2. You should have cited your evidence sooner, rather than the misapplied car theft example.

That is a good question. For parts, the same, for re-use it depends on the effectiveness of the bricking.

There is no evidence on any effect of bricking phones, just a theory. So, proposing a possible unintended consequence that postulates an increase is as viable as simply assuming a decrease. Associating it with a poor example doesn't validate either of our assumptions. I understand your confidence in the logic that leads to a reduction in theft and thus willingness to strongly hold the assumption, it makes sense, but it still remains to be seen what really happens and to what extent.

Very "sequitur", from my viewpoint. If the premise is that the effort to steal has not changed, but the return on a theft has been lowered, then there are a couple of potential reactions. 1) steal more to get the same return, 2) steal the same number and settle for lower return, 3) steal less as the return is not worth the effort.

Those options play out differently if the theft itself is made significantly more difficult assuming the return has not changed. Option 1 becomes very problematic, for instance.

Phone lock does not make it any harder to actually steal a phone, its intention is to make it less lucrative. Auto theft made the act of stealing the car more difficult. Very different.

Anyhow, some of my 'unintended consequences' were mentioned in jest, so no big deal either way.

Comparison to car theft is not a good one. Anti-theft devices in cars actually thwarted the theft itself, not so with phone-lock.

The thief will have to steal more phones in order to get one that has the feature disabled.
The thief will unfairly target older phone model owners.
The thief will have limited time to make a call on a stolen phone, so he'll need to steal another one to make another call. "Just in time theft."
Tracking of stolen phones will be disabled, so stolen phones will be harder to locate.

There are a lot of destroyed countryside, villages, and lives along the northern cost of Japan due to the tsunami. I find it interesting that so many people seem to care primarily about only the small percentage near the nuclear plant, simply because it gives them platform.