Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil invented spread-spectrum communications in 1942. It's used in WiFi, but I wouldn't call that "inventing WiFi".

While those things are possible, they are far from easy. Your garden variety script kiddie can't do that. Even far more skilled types would have to find a way to get malware onto your machine first, and have it go unnoticed. Realisticly, only governments can pull off these attacks. While that means https isn't perfect, it's far better to be vulnerable to a few than vulnerable to everyone.

Sure, they were more expensive in the past, but that's not relavent now unless you have a time machine. Same as far as dimmability, most today are dimmable. I'm sure early adopters paid a lot and were sometimes disappointed, but that goes for any new technology.

I remember in college in the mid-1990s, our dorm switched to early CFLs for our desk lamps. They were $30 apiece (which we'd have to pay for if we broke one), were odd-shaped so they fit the lamps poorly, and they had far more mercury in them than today's CFLs. I don't judge today's CFLs based on those.

Either way, the OP's claim that they cost $40 is nonsense. As is sexconker's claim that they aren't dimmable.

Here's a 1-pack of 800 lumen for under $10:
http://www.amazon.com/Philips-...

Obviously 1600 lumens costs more, but they have some Philips 1600 lumens LED bulbs for around $20, which is still way less than the $40 OP said.

They weren't actually stories of people doing those stupid things, the maker (Palcohol) suggested doing those things on the website:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4...

$40???? Amazon has name brand, dimmable LED bulbs for under $10.

You only answered half of the previous poster's question.

Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.
Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.

You addressed the 2nd amendment part, but don't explain the former. How is it that the 2nd amendment perfect only because its "old", and at the same time the 1934 act is flawed only because its old (according to you)?

According to Wikipedia, it would take 2 million years for any comets perturbed by this encounter to get to the inner solar system.

Scholz's Star

No DRM means no Netflix app, no Hulu app, no Amazon app, etc, etc, etc.

So, are they offering full refunds to people who own one and live within the newly-banned area?

Yes... the EFF is responsible for how well (or poorly) every news site out there reports this story. /s

Like I said, refusing to update means you no longer get any bug fixes or useful feature additions. You could refuse the PS3 update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but you'd then be unable to play any future games or Blu-Ray movies, and would be unable to access PSN. That's exactly the kind of thing the EFF is talking about, you buy something because it has features X, Y, and Z, then the manufacturer pushes an update that removes feature X, and if you refuse the update, features Y and Z are gimped. If you can in fact disable the no-fly list, this argument is weak in DJI's case, but that doesn't change the fact that manufacturers in general can remove features after purchase.

I'm still at a loss as to why DJI 1) didn't have the White House grounds amongst it's no-fly zones in the first place, and 2) why they decided to use a ridiculous 20 mile radius when they added it.

It doesn't just add the white house... it adds a 20 miles radius around the white house, which isn't all restricted airspace.

You keep mentioning a switch to turn off no-fly zones. Are you certain of that? Not a single article I've read on this subject mentions there being a switch, and having one completely defeats the purpose of having no-fly zones to begin with.

How did the EFF "lie"? They gave a few examples (and I'm sure you can find many, many others) of manufacturers removing or gimping features after purchase via firmware updates. Is DJI giving refunds to people who live within the new no-fly zone and now just own a very expensive paper weight? No.

Cover your eyes I guess? How is it in any way a problem to know who's calling? Does it spoil the surprise or something?

Nothing really (assuming you don't live within restricted airspace)... personal use is still unlicensed.