That's all well and good. Until criminals realize they can disable or break the camera.

I usually refer to it as "remote emissions". But "zero direct emissions" probably sounds better from a marketing standpoint.

An all expenses paid, one way trip to Cuba would be my guess.

I bought two Anker batteries for my Galaxy S3. They were considerably better than the stock battery when new. They swelled after sometime over a year and didn't hold a charge as long as when new. But I don't think the stock batter lasted much more than a year either. Actually, I'm pretty sure even after being degraded, they held a better charge than the stock battery when new.

I also have a rechargeable battery that can be connected to a phone via USB to charger the phone. It works great. I also bought a USB 3 PCIE card from them. It started getting flakey after 6 months. I sent them an email and was surprised to get a response in a day or two. All they asked for was the serial number for quality control purposes and shipped me a new one at no charge.

I've also received multiple emails from them asking me to contact them if I had any issues with any product I've purchased from them. From my experience, they seem to have above average products, though not spectacular. However their customer service is outstanding.

Then the appropriate action is for "the people" to rescind the monopoly, isn't it? Though I'm not sure how you can consider a movie a monopoly. It's entertainment.

If "we the people" put lawmakers in office that make this a crime, then that's what it is. Not that I agree with this one, but that's how laws work.

It's called "intellectual property". Again, it's not really a term I agree with. However it is considered property. And by giving it away, you are hampering the owners ability to make money off of it. How much? I really don't know. No one does. The *IAA's of the world ridiculously over inflate the amount. Then people like you claim that nothing is lost. The amount is somewhere in the middle, though I have no idea where. Regardless, someone (person or corporation) spent a bunch of money making this movie and they should be able to try to make money off of it. If you don't agree, then don't pay to see it.

The law on the books right now indicates this is a crime. Even if you and I don't agree with how it's dealt with. That's not how laws work. People don't get to choose on an individual basis if a law is stupid or not. That's part of living in a society. Perhaps you forgot to give someone their french fries at the drive through. They don't get to decide that anti-murder laws are a stupid idea and shoot you.

If you don't like the law, then you either do what you can to fix it, try to overthrow the government that enforces it, go to another country where the majority of the people think like you do, or move to an island somewhere and start your own society.

If they want to disagree with it, that's fine. Then don't go to the movie theater. Stand outside and boycott it. Draw others to your cause. I didn't read about this case, but I doubt this has anything to do with protesting injustice.

Even being a civil matter. I don't think it's right that a persons life can be ruined over something as stupid as this. Having jail time on your record, or being forced to pay mountainous sums of money does no one any good. But please don't act like these people are some kind of freedom fighters or innocent victims.

You really should get 3 more cats. Granted, it's twice as many but it will give you 3 orders of magnitude more bandwidth.

On one hand I agree with you. Technically speaking, the law is the law.

However It's obvious you've never driven on the NJ Turn Pike. I remember the first time I did 20-some years ago. I initially set my cruise control at 5 mph over the limit. Little old ladies were passing me like I was parked and flipping me the bird. Two people passed me on the shoulder at close to 100 mph. Frankly, just going 10 mph over the limit was dangerous. I settled on 75 to 80 mph as well over half the other cars were still passing me. This was back when the limit was 55 mph.

Back when the speed federal speed limits were 55 mph there was a group of several hundred people who drove on the DC beltway at 55 mph one day during the work week. It snarled traffic as no one drove that slow on the beltway.

If the police enforced the speeding laws at zero tolerance, then of course the Google cars should not speed. But the reality is, is you can easily go 5 over, and even 15 over in many areas with no chance of getting pulled over. So you have roads where the posted limit is 65, but the average speed in the drive lane is closer to 80 mph. Adding cars that are only going 65 is going to be a major problem. Either the driver is going to have to disengage the "auto-pilot", or risk getting run off the road. I'm not saying it right, but that's how it is in the real world.

My dog just said, "Video, or it didn't happen." ;-)

Except the court reporter is generally exempt from such rules. I used to be one. Most of the time the record is keyed real time. However you can't always get it all and be 100% every time. The recording is used to clean up the transcription after the fact.

The ban of recording devices is for the general public and reporters.

We're talking about a TV show. I've seen clips of CSI. They don't let reality get in the way of a stupid story. A good story would be one hell of a step up.