It's been tried. Merely being a taxpayer does not grant you standing to sue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Taxpayer_standing

Oh dear, is this the same Adrian Lamo who turned in Bradley Manning over the Wikileaks incident?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

I don't know why anyone would ever talk to this guy again for the rest of his life.

Your logic fails because everyone is corruptible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

This is unbelievably cool, and everyone involved deserves a beer. If you're in the Boston area, send me a tweet @DavidEBlau and I'll buy you drinks for the night!

No, it was filed March 19, 2009. But EQ isn't prior art; see this http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2785717&threshold=3&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=39679881#39681965

Because they filed the original application 16.5 years ago, when there wasn't so much prior art.

There is no need for this at all. The Lexus crash was a tragedy, yes, but then all of the faulty cars were recalled and now Toyota has a standard braking system installed. What problem, exactly, is NHTSA trying to fix?? Other than making more work for themselves so they can justify a budget...

That was Cold War mentality. When you go to sleep every night fearing that you might not wake up the next day because of a Soviet nuke, suddenly money and manpower are no object.

Times are thankfully a bit different now.

No, GP is correct. The federal interstate commerce clause was used to strike down a state law, because the state law (improperly) regulated interstate commerce.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause for more details.

I would think that with enough precedents against them and enough six figure settlements, any city would catch on pretty quickly that they need to fire such law-breaking cops. Hell, if another cop pulls this shit in Boston, you can bet the suit won't be for $100,000, but for a ton more because the city is showing signs of being a "habitual offender".

There are already specific regulations requiring passengers to comply with crewmember instructions with respect to:

* seat backs being upright (14 CFR 125.211(e))
* smoking and seat belts (14 CFR 125.217(d))
* food, drinks, utensils, and tray tables (14 CFR 125.333(d))

Technically speaking, there's no regulation requiring you to comply with the electronic device restrictions. However, since they can't operate the plane if someone's using one, they will more than likely just eject you if you don't turn off your device.

The relevant regulation (14 CFR 125.204) reads:

*Yawn* Cameras that can see around corners aren't even new (provided you can control the light source):

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/dual_photography/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8237361566146405294#

Following up on this, one issue during takeoff and landing isn't so much electrical as gravitational. Lots of g-forces in strange directions and easily dropped gadgets don't mix.

So why aren't we doing this?

Yes, but the market value of a stock is what someone else will pay for it. Given the fraction of relatively irrational day traders in the market, this number is largely if not totally based on subjective perception, and has little or nothing to do with the "fundamental" value of the stock. Capitalism, indeed.