Seems that if a crime happens on the internet, the punishment is automatically increased 10 fold from it's brick and mortar counter-parts.
Well, the last thing we want is for these newfangled e-criminals to compete unfairly and ruin the tried and true business model of all those struggling mom-and-pop criminals out there.
Was anyone working on this even trying? I cracked it without even reading the entire summary!
BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE
That's assuming there are only two sides to a debate.
(Or rather, the other other hand. I'm not sure how many hands this creature has.)
On the other hand, upgrading a household of OS X computers costs 0*(number of computers) + $20, whereas upgrading a household of Windows computers costs, at a minimum, $40*(number of computers).
Stopping taking pictures on private property is one of the things the someone can be told to do.
Whereas deleting pictures already taken before such a request is made is not.
People can share IP addresses, but only twins share DNA?
Eww, incest is gross.
But at the sort of distances involved, your target for any sort of physical contact weapon would have so much warning that their usefulness would be small.
There's sort of a solution for that too, though. If you're already launching projectiles large enough to really damage the enemy (or payloads large enough to do the same) you might as well launch a whole salvo of them. In that case, since maneuvering is so difficult, you send a few around where they'll be without any course corrections, and a few (hundred? thousand?) more to where they could possibly be with corrections. The plan is, effectively, to call "checkmate" upon initially firing at the enemy. Which means then it's a game of "who can spot the other guy first." Which would lead to very little space warfare and more to highly-protected and entrenched enclaves.
Is that like when media companies "lose revenue" to piracy because someone else's actions result in them getting less money than they think they deserve?
That's a poor analogy between the two. A better one would be if pirates, instead of copying music/movies, literally kidnapped all the actors/performers.
I can't say for certain, but I suspect something along the lines of, "Why couldn't I have married a normal person?"
That's certainly true, I suppose airplanes may actually be fairly crappy cages. However, I still suspect they're more effective than your average car.
I understand wifi is heavily affected by even moderate speeds such as those from a car on a freeway. Is cellular technology similarly affected? If so, the speed of the plane could have a large impact. Beyond that, are they perhaps actively jamming cell signals? Because I've never been able to pick up a signal above a few thousand feet from a commercial airliner.
Nor is it trapped in near as splendid a faraday cage as it is in the sky.
I fly all the time and have never once been asked to stow a book, including one I am actively reading.
Furthermore, they require the devices be OFF rather than simply stowed. If my phone is turned off and I can demonstrate it, they don't care if it's sitting in my hands and I'm playing with it, ineffectually pressing buttons and making wooshing sounds as I fly it around my immediate airspace. I say this from first-hand experience.
Which by process of elimination leaves...d) outdated paranoia?
And the two Android guys wouldn't stop talking about how fanatical the iPhone guy was.
Will the prison be more secure than the airport?
A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.
