Even though it was an unauthorized repair, I wonder if the FAA will be reconsidering its iPad approval.

If a law's "allowable," you can bet 100 to 1 odds that Virginia's going to adopt it.

Why would anyone want to buy a stock that doesn't pay dividends? I know, you'll sell it when the price of that stock goes up. But the price of the stock is a result of people wanting to buy it. Which brings me back to my first question: why would anyone "invest" in a company that is not going to pay you back for your investment? Where is the money coming from? Poor souls who are buying it hoping that future poor souls will buy it from them for more?

I think you summed up our disagreement best with

You see, that's exactly what a right is. When the gp said "Privacy is an inherent human right" he meant that it was important for all people (govt included) to respect that. The govt doesn't respect that though, and if you accept privacy as a right, the govt becomes an aggressor and in the wrong. The same thing for life and liberty. The govt can and has taken those things away, but that makes the govt wrong and illegitimate. You said "They're just ideas. Perhaps good, perhaps not, but still, no more than thoughts." Again, true. But while those in power take and take and take, the fact that those rights still exist and can be shown to arise naturally makes those in power wrong. Your response is mainly "who the fuck cares what you say your rights are? Those in power take what they want." This, unfortunately, is true, too. But one day we might be able to rid ourselves of those in power who control us. We might have the opportunity to create a new or smaller society and we'll need rules. Our current govt was conceived with those rights in mind, for the most part. They just missed with the checks and balances.

Rights are not something that will protect you. They won't keep you out of jail; it is up to us to defend our rights. They are a philosophical point that defines the boundaries between people. They're more than a nice thought, though - they are what we use to describe a moral society. But they won't keep you out of jail.

Well, not really true. The inherent rights to your own life and liberty arise from the assumption that people own themselves. Of course, this is an assumption that we've made that has allowed democracy and freedom to flourish. You might not accept that assumption. You might start with the assumption that society has ownership of the people, in which case you'll likely end up with a communistic government. But we started with the assumption that we own ourselves, which makes sense because outside the context of a society, people are free to do as they please.

Now if we own ourselves we own our lives. No one can take that away unless we give it to them. Likewise, if we own ourselves we own our actions, and by extension, our labor. Suddenly the "inherent" rights of life, liberty, and property are starting to show up. Your assertion that "they are simply grants supported by power" is wrong. Sure, the govt can force us to do things. They can stick us in jail, they can beat us. But they don't own our life liberty and property. They are stealing it from us. This is not a legitimate power. It is not a power that an outside observer can support. It is a power that derives its strength from the mere fact that it is stronger than us. As soon as a stronger power comes along, the old govt will topple and will prove to be transient. A govt based on the assumption of individual sovereignty, however, will stand the test of time - even when temporarily taken over by a stronger power - because it is based on a simple assumption that people inherently want to believe.

So if your stocks go down in price, are you going to get a tax refund? You can't just tax someone because their assets have become more valuable. If diamonds suddenly skyrocketed in price you can't go hunting down everyone who owns diamonds and ask for money. Are you going to tell them to sell their diamonds so they can pay your tax?

Well I know Apple will sell it to you, but I'm more curious about what plans a carrier will offer you; I've heard it's cheaper than if you go the phone through them but I haven't found anyone who will even mention unlocked phone plans. (Except for small indie carriers, of course. But I'm more curious about the big ones.)

Can you provide a link to a carrier's site that confirms this?

That doesn't always apply anymore.

Well maybe if they titled it

Using Video Cameras to Optimize Store Layouts

but instead they used words like "tracking" and "surveillance. I think it's a really cool problem: creating software that uniquely identifies a person in your store and sees how they interact with your floorplan. It'd be even cooler if the software could generate a better floorplan using that information and made it easier for people to move about and naturally tend toward the places you'd like them to go. I know you hate being manipulated, but there's something exciting about seeing an iterative algorithm result in a subconsciousness change in human behavior.

I'd take you more seriously if you ditched your cable for dialup on principle.

Yeah, that was the Roller Coaster Tycoon of whale simulations.

No. They didn't. GPS is but one of many redundant navigation systems the drone had. If the GPS is disagreeing with the INS and airspeed sensors, it would drop the GPS signal in a heartbeat. And those are only the unclassified navigation systems that all military aircraft have. If Iran was capable of tricking the drone into landing, they wouldn't need to send the drone to China to be exploited.

All in due time, Moheeheeko. Right now drones are very susceptible to jamming and satellite failures. Helicopter pilots navigate primarily using ground reference, which robots aren't good at yet. We need a backup to GPS and TACAN. Delivering beans to the wrong location isn't really a problem - just an inconvenience, really. Delivering live weapons (as in, shooting) to the wrong area would result in enough of a public outcry to push the entire unmanned program back a decade.

The first reported use of laser dazzlers in combat was possibly by the British, during the Falklands War of 1982, when they were reputedly fitted to various Royal Navy warships to hinder low-level Argentinian air attacks.

I think the real news here is that they're planning on using them against their own people.