That's only one possible implementation, it doesn't have to be done that way but there is no money in it for the carriers if my phone can talk directly to your phone. http://www.radio-electronics.c... It can work without carriers, the carriers will want to control it by building authorization protocols into it so they can make money off of it.

You would be better off buying $150 worth of equipment than tying up two cell phones with monthly fees to connect two separate networks.

No, it doesn't use bluetooth. If it was using bluetooth there would be no need for the carriers to be involved at all. https://www.qualcomm.com/media...

" Phones will be able to “talk” directly to other mobile devices" Sounds like P2P to me. The carrier doesn't control the spectrum, they have a license to use the spectrum. Am I violating any laws or regulations by powering up a cell phone that doesn't have an active carrier subscription?

This does not apply to tourists. This does not apply to someone pulling out their video camera to video the family frolicking through the wilderness. Here is the definition of "still photography" that the proposed regulation uses: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/re... "Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities." Does that sound that bad? You'll also need a permit for commercial filming, if you are a business and want to make a film set in a certain designated wilderness areas you'll need a permit. Stop the presses!

What do they do with the bombs they carry, gently release them?

Yet if you zoom into that "dark rectangle" you see that it is not in fact a uniformly dark rectangle but has data in it. So what is the significance of that darker area, why would faking it be done and is it in fact an unreasonable set of data? Or is it enough to look at pictures of clouds and note that some look like lions, some like tigers, others bears and announce OH MY!

You believe that someone who sabotages someone else's career with malicious slander wouldn't have legal liability? I strongly disagree. On the other hand, depending on the wording of the job offer, it is entirely possible that it would be retracted without legal liability at anytime prior to start of employment. In many states firing someone doesn't require any cause, your fired because it's Tuesday and I want to fire someone would be perfectly legal. The employer who revoked his offer was in Mississippi and Mississippi is an "at will" state so revoking or firing someone because you don't like what you read about them on a peer review site would be legally permissible. Thus he likely would not have a case against the people who retracted the job offer.

... or he lost his tenure because he resigned to take another offer and that other offer was revoked. I've looked at some of those comparison images and found some completely laughable (rotate image and take one small section and show it is similar to another small section but not other portions of the image) and others more like trying to compare two pictures of 4 sausages and thinking those sausages are all a bit similar to start with but not exactly. In another image comparison the comparison itself altered the dimension of the original images and they still didn't look exactly alike, just similar. But you expect similarity in similar things. From some of the comments it would be reasonable to think there was someone with an axe to grind rather than an objective review of his articles.

In many states you losing your job because your boss was unreasonable is not a cause for action against your employer as your employer can fire you for any reason that isn't unlawful. For example, if my boss was told that I cheated on my spouse my boss could fire me because spouse cheating is not a legally protected class. But if the person who told that to my boss did so with the intent of getting me in trouble and it was not in fact true I would reasonably say that he was the cause of me being fired and has liability for defaming me. Blame can be held by multiple persons, my boss for being unreasonable in firing me and the person who defamed me. One can be legal (my boss being unreasonable) and the other not (the person who defamed me).

The "keys to the kingdom" point to virtual machines that can be rehosted faster than the raider can work the legal system in multiple countries to get to the next level of servers after raiding the load balancer. The point is not that they can prevent raids but that any raids will be ineffective at shutting them down for more than a few minutes. That effectively discourages raids as a strategy as they are expensive and ineffective.

We have more regulations each year than last and I think the amount of dumb shit done every year is pretty constant. That isn't to say it wouldn't increase if the regulations disappeared, but I do think that regulations try to plug the hole the last clever scam artist figured out and there is no shortage of yet to be uncovered holes that are or will be exploited.

... only to find out that the mercenaries were really scammers who took his money and skipped town.

Guess what happens when you tell people they are gullible or fools? They get defensive and mad at you. Part of me wants the scammers in jail, the other part realizes that we don't have enough jail cells and it wouldn't matter because a fool and his money are soon parted. I Person X doesn't scam them out of their money then Person Y or Z will. It's just a matter of when and for how much, not if.

They don't pay the FedEx fee, they use stolen FedEx account numbers.