Jamming makes the required frequencies unusable. Jam the required frequencies using the following methods,

1) Since cameras use visible light, I suggest jamming using a very annoying bright disco ball. Cameras will not be able to adjust, and only very festive people will come on the bus making for a very fun ride.

2) Turn off all the lights and cover the windows. No light means no pictures (except maybe those annoying flashes). You may end up attracting lots of goths and vampire wannabes.

Seriously though, eyes use the same frequencies as cameras, so you'll end up causing problems for everyone's eyeballs. May I suggest setting a rule of no cameras and enforcing it as most everyone else does.

The article does not mention at all that methane breaks down in the atmosphere after about 9.6 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Removal_processes), and creates needed water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide does not react with anything in the atmosphere on it's own. Hence, methane is preferable in the long term.

Being someone who usually votes conservative, I find that net neutrality among conservatives is largely misunderstood. I continually hear that it requires content to be neutral. Meaning that if one opinion is present on a web page, all opposing opinions must be present as well to maintain neutrality. Everyone here should understand that is false. The source of that misinformation seems to be that the bill could be interpreted to let the FCC dictate content requirements. If the FCC were to do something crazy like that, it wouldn't hold up in court due to free speech, so it's not a reasonable concern.

To prevent misinformation, here are the two views to net neutrality.

1) Pro Net Neutrality: Internet Service Providers (ISP) should not dictate which data sources are allowed, how much bandwidth is allowed from each data source, or charge differently for data sources. For example, Netflix creates up to a third of internet traffic in the evening hours. As a result, ISP's are temped to reduce bandwidth allowed from Netflix to free up resources. Net neutrality would not allow this. This is usually the consumer point of view.

2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.

There are lots of details associated with either option. There can be a hybrid approach taken by the FCC as well. For example, if YouTube traffic gets so bad that I can't load a web page in a reasonable amount of time, then limiting YouTube would be in my best interest. In the rare cases such as that, bandwidth limiting is a good idea. Illegal activity such as child pornography could reasonably be blocked as well.

Here's the wikipedia article.

A big problem with government is the lack of a higher entity to regulate. The best mechanism to date is the voter entity to remove politicians from office if they don't like something in government. However, that is extremely indirect. It's difficult and unwise to remove a politician over a single issue, and difficult for voters to change the issue directly. Representative democracy is the best form of government to date, but it has shortcomings.

One good aspect of doing business in the private sector is that the government can pick up regulation as a separate entity. It works well. But with issues of intelligence, military, and legislation, the private sector can only play a limited role. Hence the government becomes producer and regulator with the voters becoming the indirect regulator. It's a problem of government that has yet to have a good solution.

This statement implies these people access the internet regularly. However, that's not the question they asked.

This statement says motorists have accessed the internet at all, meaning at least one time ever in your life, not on a regular basis.

This is a very important distinction that the article glosses over. If I accessed the internet on my phone once 5 years ago, then this survey would call me "one who accesses the internet while driving," which is very misleading. I don't access the internet while driving. The survey should ask something like "have you accessed the internet while driving in the last month." Then the data would be reasonable and give a much better representation of what people do.

This is not 40% if executives infecting phones. In fact, based on the article, we don't know how many execs get malware on their phone. However, out of that total unknown percentage of execs with malware, 40% of them get their malware from porn sites. The summary is using a method of lying with statistics, letting the reader infer something that isn't true by showing a similar true statistic.

This statistic wasn't even the point of the article, but rather that breaches are not being reported by companies.

Every weapon is developed for a specific use and target type in mind, and includes which countries have that type of target. The cost of the weapon is heavily vetted before development is started and constantly monitored. My guess is you're being funny, but what you want to happen does happen. Most of it is unclassified and freely available, it's just most people don't look for it.

I know there are lots of people against military research, but the sudden and intense conflicts in the 20th century taught the world that preparation and hoping for the best is better than no preparation and hoping for the best. And by hope I mean politicians working it out without conflict.

I meant projectors are infeasible for that reason.

Pilots look anywhere and everywhere when they fly, especially for close air support when the targets are on the ground. This is an advantage they have over Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV), fast response to threats and quick updates to situational awareness. Projectors do not come anywhere close to replacing window capability and the USAF views windows as infeasible for that reason.

You hit the reason that the USAF is moving towards UAVs. They have quick response time and can direct the AV in a more stable manner. However, autopilots and guidance systems do not come close to completing with a pilot in common sense, not yet anyway. Pilots can look and identify surface to air missiles, anit-aircraft munitions, and other threats on the ground and know to immediately avoid that area while a UAV does not have that capability, and can get shot down. Looking video through a camera does not compare to cockpit view of the combat area. Requests for UAV support have exact steps to go through and do not respond to sudden changes in situations unless an operator interprets the situation and sends new commands, while a pilot can respond to changes in the situation instantaneously. UAVs take dangerous tasks away from pilots very well, but they cannot yet accomplish all tasks.

You hit the goal of the USAF. But it will be a while before UAVs can dogfight and consistently use common sense like a pilot does.

The US Military has the best satellite optics there are, and is constantly improving them. However, when you're looking at an object from 400 km away that's refracted through 100 km of atmosphere of varying temperature and density, there are limits to image quality. Nothing beats using those same optics and getting closer, like on a UAV flying over the object.

Reporter: Why did you drive on the airport runway?

Driver: My iPhone said it was the fastest path to the airport

Reporter: If your phone said to drive off a cliff, would you?

Driver: Well duh, it's the fastest way to the bottom of the cliff

If you're a citizen, you can have access to it.

Export control information usually involves technology that can be used to create missiles or others armaments. NASA works with rockets, so some of that material may have information involving missiles. It's a good idea to have some control over where that information goes so it doesn't help a hostile entity and come back to us.

Here I am working, when I could be playing. Thanks Slashdot, now I'm going to have to kill my productivity and go home and kill some zerg!

In addition, she published a review a few years earlier claiming that the flame retardant should be banned. She had a strong opinion before being appointed to the committee, thus she was biased, and so should have never been appointed. In this case the industry was right. She didn't have an open mind coming in.

There's always malware on any operating system, including IOS. While Apple does a good job at preventing it, they can't prevent it 100% of the time. Here are a few articles talking about malware on iOS for those who think it doesn't exist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/07/06/first-ios-malware-hits-app-store/
http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2012/08/29/finfisher-malware-goes-mobile-infects-android-iphone-blackberry/
http://www.redmondpie.com/another-malware-app-sneaks-into-ios-app-store/
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/238101/scitech/hacker-reveals-ios-malware-vulnerability-gets-punished
http://www.techpluto.com/ios-malware/