What I'd do is unplug the cameras whenever I didn't want them on. Of course I wouldn't tell them that before launch, but it only makes sense. Being several years away from a rescue team, there's no way I'd be wasting limited resources operating a camera if it wasn't necessary for the task at hand, and It's not like mission control could do anything about it. I'd be so far away that it's impossible to hold a real-time conversation, and it's designed as a one-way trip. It's not like they could fire me or punish me with anything more than a strongly worded email or nasty phone message from that distance.

All three worship the god of Abraham. You're either ignorant of your own beliefs or ignorant of Muslim beliefs if you think otherwise.

All of those are great points, but you missed the most recent and catastrophic development in the struggle for human rights vs. corporate rights, which is that Corporations are now allowed to make unlimited political contributions, whereas private individuals are limited to $2500. Corporations now have an even greater ability to manipulate the government for their own ends than ever before, and I don't think any sane person believes that is a good thing.

Did you accidentally switch US and UK or something? Cops get away with shooting people in the US all the time. Unless the victim is already handcuffed and in the back of the cruiser, when a cop shoots someone in the US, they're put on paid administrative leave for a few weeks, then returned to duty. Maybe if it's really obvious that the cop had no business shooting the guy, he'll return to duty with a nasty letter in his file.

Why would you pick the myth of jesus as your basis for morality? There are much older holy texts out there that that provide moral guidance, and much newer. Is it simply because that's what mommy and daddy taught you to believe? If so, your entire moral system is nothing but an appeal to authority.

Is AMD hoping this impractical PR stunt will distract us from the fact that their chips have been lagging behind Intel's for the past two years?

I actually like the Sense interface they made it feels more intuitive than default Android, but it does noticably slow down the phone. I've got an HTC Evo 4G, and I rooted it for free wi-fi tether. I didn't realize how much faster the stock android UI is until I installed CyanogenMod7, probably because the phone as pretty good hardware specs compared to most smart phones. CM7 made the UI seem much more responsive, and apps don't stutter at all like they'd occasionally do with Sense.

Or you could just look at the source code for the GPS module on your cell phone and re-compile, thus verifying that it is, indeed providing you with the correct information using the method described. You really really are ignorant if you think that science has anything to do with faith.

Sounds like a wet-saw for tile or masonry would do the job.

Yeah you can, just combine fiber optics with a photo-voltaic cell. It'd be inefficent and a stupid waste of fiber, but it could be done :)

Yeah, you could do it, but it'd be WAY more expensive because each tower would need it's own generator, and it takes a lot more towers to cover to cover the same area that one POTS CO can cover. Each of those towers also consumes orders of magnitude more power to provide coverage a unit area than the POTS network takes due to the inefficient nature of omni-directional radio broadcast. Basically, in addition to backup generators, you'd need either a massive amount of on-site fuel storage if you wanted the generators to be able to run for more than a few hours, or a significant fuel distribution network (natural gas would be great, but the infrastructure just is'nt available everywhere you need it) and during Frances, you couldn't get diesel or gasoline any easier than you could get electricity.

It's a technically simple problem, but a logistical nightmare during an emergency situation.

It would take either a massive government subsidy to get it done, or your cell phone bill would skyrocket to cover the additional infrastructure costs.

It's not the case yet though, and good luck getting any kind of "make big businesses worry about the consumer" legislation passed in the current US political climate. When my town was hit by hurricane Frances in 2004, power was out for a week and a half, and the only way to communicate was using an old corded telephone on a POTS line. The cell towers were all unpowered, as were the cablemodems. I haven't done the math, but I have a feeling that it takes a lot more power to cover a given area with cell signal than to keep the POTS system running over the same coverage area, just because broadcasting omni-directional radio signals is inherently less efficient than direct-line communication.

PSTN is useful during power outages. When hurricane Frances hit Florida in 2004, power was out in my town for about a week and a half. No power means the Cell towers were't working and the cable modem gets shut off. Since PSTN provides it's own power, most people that I know of keep a simple, dumb old corded telephone somewhere in their house for emergency communication during hurricanes.

It's already been done.

First of all, please stop suggesting that you understand what I want or what I think, you've been wrong both times and I've already corrected you on it once. I don't really care which side would win such a case because I have no interest in playing the game, it's just raised a legal question that I found interesting. I don't think that the company should be forced to fund the service until they go bankrupt. Believe it or not, there are other possible remedies to the solution. They could refund part of the purchase price, or simply fine the company to discourage them from doing it again. Your arguments seem to suggest that you think this is a very black and white issue, but I believe that there is some gray space in between "they can put whatever they want on the box, who cares if it's not true or if the claim is only true for a short period of time, fuck the consumer" and "you have to support the features of your product until the earth is eventually consumed by our expanding sun". The question that I am actually interested in is whether supporting multiplayer for three years has fulfilled their obligation to provide the service that they said they would. I've clearly stated why I believe that a "we can break your game whenever you feel like it" disclaimer on the box satisfies all three requirements of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act of 1999, and is potentially invalid.

I've explained why I think it applies, now please explain to me why you think it doesn't apply. You haven't given any reasons beyond "nuh-uh" and "look at all these websites that shut down at some point without getting sued".

RE: estoppel: The only game that I can find that has shut down it's servers faster is EA's Madden/NCAA series games, but they specifically say on the box that multiplayer will be avilable for 12 months only, which I do not believe would be covered by the Act because it clearly states the duration they are obligated to provide service rather than a nebulous "shit might get shut down at some point" that leaves the consumer completely in the dark about how long they actually have to play the game that they are purchasing. There isn't much case law covering this subject, which is specifically why it is interesting to me.