Indeed they can. Unfortunately they decided to let the people responsible for ACPI actually follow through on that, and then decided that it would make a good bootloader.

What I find most baffling about the whole affair is how something that one would ordinarily think of as a fairly overtly malicious exploit, spoofing the appropriate management frames to break a network you don't have authenticated access to the configuration interface for, became a 'respectable' tool for 'management', even included out of the box in fancy commercial products from vendors with risk averse legal teams and so on.

This seems like the place where somebody who has been dealing with enterprise wireless gear long enough to have observed the change might be found. Did this 'feature' cross over from what was initially a proof of concept by a security researcher? Was it recognized as a possibility before the standards had even been hammered out and was available from day one? Do we know what vendor adopted it first? Were there any who specifically didn't offer it for legal, rather than technical, reasons?

At this point, it is certainly the case that at least some wireless management consoles adopt a very...possessive...tone, detecting 'rogue' APs, despite those APs being no more or less legitimate than any others, in terms of spectrum use, and offering 'containment' or various similarly clinical euphemisms for dealing with them. How, historically, did it come to be that this nasty DoS trick went all legitimate, even as generalized hacker hysteria can get you a stiff dose of CFAA charges for almost anything that involves a CLI and confuses the DA?

I'd love to have my hands on all the versions of various vendors' wireless management and administration packages, to see how this feature evolved over time. I can certainly see its appeal; but I find it hard to believe that nobody had serious doubts about its legality from time to time.

Less likely. The FCC is pretty clearly within their powers in saying that you aren't allowed to intentionally interfere with other people's Part 15 devices by using your own to generate disruptive RF.

There is no obvious coverage for forbidding the sale of devices having a Part 15 radio component; but lacking a software configuration for providing network access to other devices with that device. They might be able to shove it into the conditions of a spectrum auction, and make it binding on the buyer; but it's more of an FTC problem.

The problem is, it looks like they're trying to sell it as a car, when it's really just another glorified golfcarts.

It's funny that you mentioned Florida, since that's where I am at the moment. I'm only quoting parts of the laws, so this doesn't become a huge message. You can follow the links to read the rest of the statute and other relevant statutes if you want.

Golf carts can only drive on roads in certain communities and only in certain circumstances.
See Florida Statute 316.212

316.212 Operation of golf carts on certain roadways.â"The operation of a golf cart upon the public roads or streets of this state is prohibited except as provided herein:

The "Local Motors" vehicles would appear to be classified in Florida as LSV (Low Speed Vehicles). They're covered by Florida Statute 316.2122

316.2122 Operation of a low-speed vehicle or mini truck on certain roadways.â"The operation of a low-speed vehicle as defined in s. 320.01 or a mini truck as defined in s. 320.01 on any road is authorized with the following restrictions:
(1)âfA low-speed vehicle or mini truck may be operated only on streets where the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour or less. This does not prohibit a low-speed vehicle or mini truck from crossing a road or street at an intersection where the road or street has a posted speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour.
[snip]

The UTV is classified here as an ATV (All Terrain Vehicle), and covered by Florida Statute 316.2074.

316.2074(5) Except as provided in this section, an all-terrain vehicle may not be operated upon the public roads, streets, or highways of this state, except as otherwise permitted by the managing state or federal agency.

That's not to say people don't drive them on the road. I've seen them do it. They're breaking the law, and if the police are so inclined, they will be more than happy to give you a stack of tickets.

I've seen both golfcarts and various designs of ATVs used in a lot of places. A agree, they are popular for both industry and off-road applications. But with them implying it's a car it's a problem.

Honestly, it wouldn't be safe to drive any real distance in most metro areas in Florida, if it is accepted for road use as a LSV.

For example, I can't think of any routes that you could safely use to get from downtown Tampa to downtown St. Petersburg. You can't cross any of the bridges in that car, because they don't go fast enough. It would be virtually impossible to even find a route where you wouldn't be under the speed limit and significantly under the average speed.

Even downtown St. Petersburg to downtown Clearwater would be risky at best.

Does anyone know why they wouldn't sidestep the infeasibility of particularly long cable runs by having the elevator climb the walls of the shaft directly, rather than being raised and lowered on a cable? I imagine that a cable and counterweight arrangement is more energy efficient for shorter runs; but if that isn't an option wouldn't a cog railway style mechanism, with 'track' on one or more walls of the elevator shaft, result in a system where the weight that has to be moved doesn't change at all with the height of the building? There would be some additional weight per unit height from the track structure; but that would be static and connected to the building's frame rather than being forced to support its own weight.

Too energy intensive? Wears too quickly? Safety breaks infeasible leading to risk of sickening plummet to doom?

Trust me, Chuck Schumer knows exactly what he's doing. He never passes up an opportunity to restrict freedom.

THIS^^

These leaders that are supposed to be representing the peoples' will, seem to be so disconnected from what we the people want.

I think a larger problem is these asshats making this a lifetime career.

I know it stands a snowballs chance in hell, but we desperately need term limits to keep fresh blood more representative of the citizenry going through up there on a regular basis. These govt jobs were NOT meant to be lifetime careers.

Maybe more of a chance of governmental representatives thinking more of the rights of the people over the ever growing power of the govt to restrict the commoners' rights.

OK, I see what you're saying. That there's really little reason for the operating system on a home computer to look and work exactly like the one at work.

I agree. I think as computer users, we're mature enough not to need this level of familiarity. This is one reason that at some point down the road, I hope to be able to use both Windows for my digital audio workstation in my home studio, and some form of "SteamOS" for playing games. Of course, with companies like EA/Origin and Ubisoft using their own game store platforms, I don't see all PC games being compatible with a SteamOS for some time to come.

I was only referring to the US, being that the data tracking in the article was with reference to the US governmental agencies.

That's an OK rant, I'd give it a C+, or maybe a nice solid B, because of the pernicious influence of the 'self esteem' movement and grade inflation; but you need to remember 'elasticity'. It's a fairly important property of both supply and demand.

It is undoubtedly true that many political policies(across the spectrum, or whatever the geometry of your preferred political metaphor is) are incoherent, largely because many individuals' own desires are internally inconsistent and, even where they aren't, they usually have to do some amount of compromising with competing goals in order to actually get something passed into law.

However, elasticity of supply and demand are major factors in considering the policies you mention:

'Sin taxes', on booze, cigs, hookers, etc. are designed to exploit elasticity in two ways: because kids tend to be fairly poor, since their labor force participation and share of capital gains are both low, they usually have very high elasticity of demand; their demand for a good will generally drop sharply, sometimes to zero, with even relatively modest price increases. Here, the 'sin tax' is basically a flavor of Pigouvian taxation, aimed at discouraging voters' children from doing things they don't want them doing. Among adult consumers(especially addicts, what great customers!), demand for sin goods tends to be inelastic, which makes taxing those goods a pragmatic revenue source, since the low elasticity of demand reduces deadweight losses from taxation and means that you won't reduce the number of sales you get to take a cut of by too much in taking your cut. So (while you aren't supposed to say it this cynically in public) 'sin taxes' are actually a pretty sweet deal: they are an easy sell, by tax standards; because they promise to curtail activity that voters dislike(thanks to the high elasticity side of the sin market); but they are also far better at revenue generation than standard Pigouvian taxation, thanks to the low elasticity side of the sin market, who will keep right on buying. It actually works pretty well.

In the case of minimum wage (aside from pure moralizing of the 'living standards below X are unacceptable per se' flavor), the assumption being made(exactly how accurately it is being made is arguable) is that what demand remains for low-skilled workers is actually fairly inelastic(which is less crazy than it might sound, since so much has already been offshored or automated, with the remaining demand mostly coming from people who need warm bodies on site in the US, or idiomatic native English proficiency, or the like); but that the bargaining power of low-skilled workers is approximately fuck-all, since the demand has plummeted from historical highs, and organized labor is nearly dead. If such assumptions are accurate(the second is definitely true, I don't really want to get into an argument about the first, merely to note that it is the assumption being made by those in favor of minimum wage increases), then it should actually be possible to increase the minimum wage without markedly reducing demand for minimum wage workers, since the employers who could make do with fewer(either through robots or China) have mostly already done so. Whether or not it is accurate, it is the operating assumption.

As for 'wage and price controls', I'm not certain what you are referring to. Nixon tried them, back in '71, as a counterinflationary strategy(outcome: unsuccessful) and more far-reaching measures were taking during the world wars; but the various regulations(local, state, national) that are wage or price controls of some flavor are rarely talked about in aggregate like that; and are a giant hodgepodge of various things.

Few companies have ever done that(probably not zero, I'm sure at least a few charities have been structured such that they count as 'companies' in legal terms); but any company with a PR budget has wished to appear (at least in part) to be doing that. Given the number and size of the world's PR budgets, I can only assume that a great many companies have wished to appear to do that.

I don't know how much Uber HQ values good PR, though given their zillion-odd entanglements in markets where they are dubiously legal, they probably should consider it; but if they do value it, the case to be made is pretty obvious:

Whatever Team Econ has to say about the wonders of equilibrium pricing and the joyous intersection of the supply and demand curves, it's pretty obvious that 'surge pricing' is not people's favorite aspect of Uber, especially during events that are seen as exceptional in some way(they scored some very acidic headlines during the Sydney hostage incident, as I recall). Even among people who reject economic moralizing, the existence of options markets is a convincing demonstration that people assign value to predictable prices.

On the other hand, it's also fairly evident that Uber's service will be less popular if it is seen as unreliable and more popular if people think of it as always delivering a ride on request.

If Uber wants to improve their image, they have the option of doing so by absorbing some or all of the conflict between these two aspects of their service in situations that would be likely to generate unpleasant attention otherwise. They don't have an obligation to do so(even if they did drop the facade of not being a taxi operation, taxi regulations largely focus on price not on obligating operators to operate at all times); but it is a fairly obvious way to buy more favorable opinion, which is something that profit-oriented companies routinely think is worth doing.

Well, I had an IBM PC-1, and yes and no respectively.

Clearing CMOS settings is still done with a jumper. I do wish that all flash BIOS devices had a write protect jumper, though, and it would cost little to add them.

I sure do, but any time I go visit a new contract or even just go on vacation, I shave it. It's not an attachment or an affectation, I just don't measure my value by the cleanliness of my neck. It's not my fault I was born hairier than the average bear.

But hey, thanks for recognizing how great I am. I could use the publicity.

Where in the Constitution it is not ok for them to do this? After all, you are on public roads, you still can go anywhere you want. I don't see where they are violating the Constitution here.

Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant YOU rights, those are natural. The Constitution is there to GRANT the federal govt very limited, enumerated rights. Basically it is supposed to be there to grant them rights and responsibilities, and anything NOT in the constitution is not something they are supposed to be able to do. This was the foundation for a limited, and minimally intrusive form of Federal Govt., which has been bastardized over the years, and many of us would prefer to have reigned in.

The govt is not supposed to be there to track me, nor put out a blanket dragnet of surveillance to try to find any wrongdoers out there. Especially at the Federal level. Possibly more able to at the state level, but at least on state and local level, you have a bit more recourse and influence over the local politicians than at a federal level.

Not to mention, if you don't like the rules of one state you are free to move to a more like minded state. If this is done federally and nationally, you lose that freedom.

But yes, the Constitution is there to grant very LIMITED and enumerated rights, roles and responsibilities for the federal govt. If it isn't in it the constitution, it should not be a power they have.

At least, that's the way and thought behind the construction and mandate of our govt. in the beginning.

I looked into it...but man, after reading the TOS for Waze....I'm very hesitant to download it much less sign up for it...the amount of info they seem to get from you is pretty bad. It tracks you, and keeps all the data from your travels.

I'd be happy to use an app that didn't track me so much, but to give voluntary info on police speed trap warnings, and traffic incidents, but I don't want them keeping my travel data and tracking me in real time.

This thing looks like a privacy nightmare from the TOS.

I"ve used an older app called "Trapster" which was a bit more anonymous and allowed folks to report speed traps and traffic cameras, etc. I think it fell a bit into dis-use which makes these kind of apps useful or not, but man, I don't like all the tracking and all that Waze does and the information it collects and seems to keep. Otherwise I'd jump on board big time.

Would be nice to know where speed traps and DWI roadblocks are set up when driving.

I prefer to avoid the police while out no matter what the cause.

Typecasting. They play the villain role so frequently, it's impossible to see them any other way.