http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/estore/certifieddevice/cd

They claim they'll activate phones they didn't sell now.

But yes, the 4S is the first iPhone sold in any other way than as a VZW phone that can work on their network.

I believe there are a few regional GSM carriers, and some MVNOs that you can use an unlocked GSM iPhone on.

You seriously want to make that argument? Mass murders? Slavery?

How many are dead in Iraq? I think that little mass murder escapade outnumbers all other terrorist actions combined. And don't try to claim that wasn't a war started by right-wing xians, all you have to do is listen to some of the rhetoric from the man responsible, G. W. Bush.

Oh, you want state judicial murders? Yeah, we've got those too. Over 1200 of them just since 1977.

Pure terrorism? McVeigh wasn't exactly muslim, was he? How about Eric Rudolph? No?

Go back a few hundred years - witch burnings. Go back a bit farther - crusades. islam is about 700 years younger than xianity, which makes a difference in scale of fanaticism, religions calm down somewhat as they age.

And we're not exactly short on slavery either. The US imprisons more of its population than any other country, and most of those people are forced into virtually unpaid work for someone else's profit. Things which hurt no one can lead to a very long prison term, which becomes enslavement.

islam and christianity are both evil, and very much alike. In many ways, they're just different branches of the same religion, both claiming to have the truth while being very, very wrong. The xian bible is full of exactly the same kind of instructions from "god" to kill, maim, and enslave that are in the koran. They're just fortunately ignored by more of its followers.

Many Sprint phones are useable on Cricket.

What REALLY needs to happen is nothing of the sort.

Liability limits are nothing but corporate welfare. They pass on the cost of corporate screwups to everyone else, and insulate the wealthy from having to pay their fair share.

Liability for driverless car malfunctions should lie exactly where it does today for car malfunctions - with the automotive manufacturer. If the manufacturer is concerned that there may be a catastrophic bug that will kill lots of people, the manufacturer should buy insurance to cover that unlikely case. And if they pull a Ford (as in Pinto), there shouldn't be anything to insulate them from their well-deserved punitive damages.

Something I've never understood about articles like this is why they would claim that driverless cars are illegal.

They're not. Not in my state, and not in any state that I'm aware of.

Under the standard legal premise of "that which is not prohibited is permitted" that operates in the vast majority of the world, there are no laws which ban driverless cars. Automotive laws specify quite a few things, but most of those apply to:

1. The car. A car has quite a few things that it's required to have. Things like headlights, turn signals, windshields, tail lights, air bags, seat belts, etc. A driverless car could have all these things, and likely would have them. If they're all there as required, the car is legal.
There are also things a car is not allowed to do. For example, it's not allowed to be in certain places, and it's not allowed to be in other places for more than a certain amount of time. It's not allowed to go through a red light when there's a scamera at that light. It's not allowed to go above a certain speed when there's a scamera. Tickets for these things aren't given to the driver, they're given to the car or sent by mail to the car's owner. An automated car could certainly handle those rules, probably better than most humans. Because until now cars weren't capable of traveling without human supervision, there was no need to write laws that would apply to the car doing that. And if there's no law prohibiting it, it's legal.

2. The driver. There are lots of laws that apply to a driver. They specify what a driver can and can't do, what he must wear, what he must possess, and how he should behave in various situations on the road. These laws apply to a person. They are written to be completely inapplicable to a car, as there was no need to make them apply to the car. And if they don't apply to the car, they're simply irrelevant to a driverless car.

So I would say that no new enabling laws actually need to be passed at all. The existing legal structure is sufficient in most places for driverless cars to be on the streets today.

http://www.ah0a.org/FCC/Graphs.html

Really? We're only talking 110-120v here, electricians wire this stuff hot all the time.

If it's inconvenient to turn off the circuit, it's not that hard to wire an outlet hot. If you're careful, you don't get shocked at all, I've done it many times.

Now, stealing one probably won't do much for you, but removing one and replacing it with a standard outlet will. Given that outlets go for about $.50, if they're charging more than that for the power it's going to happen - especially if they start putting these in private spaces like hotel rooms.

I know if I were expecting this in a hotel room, I'd start carrying around workaround devices. Though it would probably be quicker to just use a screw-in lamp socket outlet; they're not that common these days, but not impossible to find.

So, it seems that everyone else has forgotten to link Spreading Santorum in the article, so I'll do it here.

It's not that Santorum has a Google problem, it's that Santorum has a bigotry problem, and lots of us are participating in the solution - which is to make it VERY public that he's a homophobic slime.

It's kind of like the "vote for the crook, it's important" publicity in the '91 Louisiana gubernatorial election. At least Duke was a former grand wizard of the KKK, Santorum is CURRENTLY doing everything he can do to harm a minority part of the population - and this frothy mix is running for President!

So I fully support the fact that the word "santorum" now means "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Sure, it's distasteful. But it's important.

Somehow, putting my personal confidential documents on somebody else's server seems like a very, very bad idea. I'm not at all sure why you'd suggest it.

Scan as you go makes sense for new documents, but I think THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER's question really was a request for our opinions on bulk scanning solutions for already existing paper documents, not an ill-advised "cloud" storage solution for new ones.

Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer either, scanners generally prove to be quite the annoyance.

You're forgetting the next part of that sentence: "promote the general Welfare." The basis for all welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and anything else that helps the population of the country is covered in the constitution, right there.

And while providing for a defensive capability is mentioned, there's NOTHING constitutional about a purely offensive weapon like this one. Not only is it an extreme waste of tax dollars that could be better spent promoting the general welfare, but it's being bought by an unconstitutional branch of the military. The constitution sets up three military services, the Army, the Navy, and the state militias. There is NO constitutional basis for the Air Force to exist at all. And the constitution specifically restricts the Army's existence to two years, another constitutional provision which has been completely ignored. There is NO constitutional basis for a purely offensive capability, which means that about 95% of the current military budget is completely unconstitutional. Oh, and it's MUCH more than a tiny fraction of the federal budget at 20% - which is still FAR too high.

So the only erroneous part of the GP's statement is that the suggested name was incomplete, it should be called the Unconstitutional Department of Wasting Tax Dollars.