Except bribery does not exist in capitalist US. Instead, we call it "lobbying" and "campaign contributions."

In US, Fox News controls the government.

You mean like "Kleenex" or "Band-Aid"? Oh wait, those are still under trademark, aren't they?

It doesn't saying Boeing's design is the safe choice. It says Boeing the company is the safe choice. Publicly, that means they have been around a long time, are reliable, and we can have confidence that they'll succeed (@see Lockheed Martin with the F-35). Privately, that means they can be relied on to give campaign contributions, kickbacks, and/or highly paid consulting jobs after retirement the right people.

Unless you're trying to be an ass and split hairs over the definition of "drone," yes they fucking do. Most off-the shelf drones (for the colloquial use of the word "drone," anyway), including the most popular ones like the Parrot AR.Drone and The Phantom use Wifi.

Other than this (FTA):

The big problem with that is not just that it's not your network, but also that if you switch the device on and it interfered with a drone that's already in the air, it could come crashing down and either seriously hurt somebody or at least cost the drone owner a lot of money. If somebody is spying into your backyard, fine, crash that sucker into the ground (after making sure nobody is around to get hurt), but obviously that's not always the case.

Okay, so it identifies by mac address, then sends a deauthentication packet (some sort of ARP spoof maybe)? That ought to count as "false signals," do that to somebody else's device and you should get busted for computer intrusion. If it's your own network, then easy peasy, just block the MAC address.

It's not that hard for them to find a dupe. They blast out messages through email and Yahoo chat all the time from textile companies looking for "agents" in the US. They usually have some excuse about how they got your contact info. They blast out enough so the hit ratio can be minuscule. Not everyone is savvy about things related to technology. Most who fall for it are probably idiots, but even people who are intelligent in other things have fallen for it.

The scam goes something like this: You're dupeA, they need an agent in the US to process payments, because the tax law is such that it makes the business taxes they have to pay significantly less than if the payments were processed offshore. Sometimes they do indicate that their avoidance of taxes is a gray area, which discourages people from talking about it with their friends who might tell them what's up. It is your job to simply print the checks (dupeB sent you the blanks) and mail them in the amounts and destination they tell you. In exchange, you get a commission, which essentially means writing yourself a check and depositing it into your bank. DupeB's job was to order the checks online, supposedly because they can only be sent to a US address, and DupeB is given a real bank account number to have put on the checks. DupeC is who gets the check you sent them. DupeC is selling something on craigslist, and the Nigerians have contacted him saying they want to buy his item and they'll arrange for their shipping agent to ship it to them, but the only way they can send DupeC money is by having their client, who already owes them money, send them a check. However, the amount the client owes them is more than the sale price of the craigslist item. So, DupeC needs to go deposit the check from the client (actually DupeA) in his bank, then send the difference to Nigeria via Western Union, minus a little extra for the inconvenience.

And of course, once the checks fail to clear, your bank takes back the amount of the check from your account, and DupeC is screwed out of whatever amount he sent via Western Union.

Last time a flew. It was a 2 year old. They're short so the lack of legroom isn't an issue. Of course, the kid started screaming her lungs out right before takeoff because mommy and daddy made her turn off her iPad, but she was smiling before that.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that if you're not flying by yourself you have to multiply that cost by the number of people in your family.

What's scummy is that they have reduced the "standard" to be so intolerable that it forces people to purchase the premium. If the "standard" was tolerable, but then they charged you extra for something more luxurious, then it wouldn't be scummy. There is a huge difference.

But that's per flight, right? So a round trip itinerary with only 1 stop would be $60 x 4 = $240? That's not so modest for many people. Even if it were $60-$70 each way and not each flight, $120 - $140 round trip is not trivial.

Great analogy. Most everyone knows that it's possible for your credit card number to get stolen. Heck, many of us have had our banks cancel our credit card (and send us a new one of course) because it was stolen from some merchant we purchased something from. So, just like using a credit card, if you're going to put nude pictures of yourself on the Internet (or anything on the Internet) then you should know there's a reasonable possibility that it is going to get stolen.

Okay, except that's not what Comcast did when they first entered most markets. They built out the highly profitable areas long before they built out into less profitable areas. I mean, wow, in what other industry to you get a government enforced (not just allowed) monopoly without all the pesky regulation that other monopolies (like electricity and water) get?

The problem here isn't simply that they are unable to deliver unlimited bandwidth. The problem is they charge you for it even though they can't deliver it, and they know they can't deliver it when they sell it to you. The non-fraudulent way to say it would be "$A for the first B GBs, plus $C for every additional GB." Instead, they say, "$A for unlimited."

If they use the word "unlimited" and/or say "unlimited Internet for $X" but then put a limit on it or charge you more than $X, then it's a lie. If they say or print it openly, then it is blatant. Therefore, it is a blatant lie.

Obligatory car related analogy: Imagine if a gas station put up a sign that says "Unlimited gasoline for $8!" but then charged $6 for every gallon over 2 gallons. Do you think they'd get away with it?