For a proscriptive language, you are right. For a descriptive language, like English, you are wrong. The collective wrong definition is the correct one, and the two hold-outs to the "pure" or "original" definition are wrong. That's how language works.

Then I saw nobody post anything in the chain that indicated there were any such people. People who explain the law, as enforced, to you aren't "defending" it or asserting they think it's ok.

You should learn to make such distinctions, or you'll come off looking like the moron.

The capabilities you are describing are impossible in the kill-switches being implemented. They may be technically possible, but not related to the kill switch under discussion.

So, you've never read an MSDS for an insecticide, have you?

I never said it was toxic to humans because it was toxic to insects.

See the error in your logic?

They know. The dem commies are about to lose big. A GOP Senate can't wait to try these no filibuster rules.

Someone else posted the types being rejected. They are the ones where the rice generates its own insecticide. So it's food for humans, that's also poisonous to humans. What could possibly go wrong?

That's an assertion, but is it true? Bt [grain] produces poison. Perhaps the poison is still present in the edible rice, but not the edible corn? I don't know, but there may be other reasons, perhaps it's because corn is so low in production, and not a traditional crop with widespread domestic use, so it's not a "health issue"? Just because one is banned and the other not doesn't mean that safety must not be a reason.

With no baseband, you don't have the option to use the phone network. And a generic Chinese phone would likely not honor the kill request anyway.

What's "TSA apologist"? Anyone who doesn't share your ideals?

It may have worked out differently for you, but T1 where I was was all about call time, nothing else mattered. So long as no official complaint was lodged, hanging up on people was allowed (and unofficially condoned/supported). For most, it's a dead end.

I know what it means, and I know what people think it means, and I know they don't match. Using the common definition, even if it doesn't match your definition isn't an error.

Only ones they have the names and subscriber info for. They can't turn off the phones of everyone in a group near a riot. For that, they would just turn off the towers.

Put it in airplane mode and it turns off the radio. They can't brick it then. So if you find yourself being paranoid, turn on airplane, turn on wifi, and backup your phone, then turn off airplane.

More realistically, based on government bad acts, this would get the most use when someone needs to be "taken out" by the government. The government would plant child porn on their phone and arrest them. Political crimes are prosecuted in the US, we just say they aren't, and use one of the three felonies a day to prosecute political criminals. Get someone in prison, even for a day, and they will be ruined for life (discredited, unable to get any more jobs, etc.), and you can always blame them for an inmate death, and keep them there indefinitely, even if they went in for a non-violent felony, they can spend their whole lives there, if the government wanted.