This ban has NOTHING to do with what logo is painted on the aircraft, but depends entirely on the airports involved.
Flying from Paris to Chicago? Middle-Eastern and American airlines have the same rules -- electronics allowed, even on a Middle-Eastern airline. Flying from Istanbul to New York? Once again, same rules for Middle-Eastern and American airlines -- no electronics, even on the American airline.
So, explain to me how this is supposed to prefer one airline over another? I am really waiting to hear this one.
Leaving aside the fact it's rarely the case you can just sign away liability..
The GPL only applies if you decide to accept its conditions. Just installing Ubuntu doesn't mean you've agreed to the GPL and, as such, Canonical has anything to point at if your Nuclear Reactor has a meltdown because a bug in Unity swapped the "Drop fuel rods/Raise fuel rods" buttons by accident.
Sure, you might give up your right to sue if you subsequently redistribute Ubuntu to others. But even then... like I said, it's rare you can just sign away liability.
Scrollwheels used to work fine. Then some idiots at Canonical and GNOME decided to redesign the scrollbar, on the grounds we don't need it any more because we have scrollwheels, despite the fact that, actually, no, quite often we don't, and in the course of effing up the scrollbar they managed to eff up the mousewheel at the same time.
I still don't know why they didn't just revert to how things were. They fixed a problem that doesn't exist, and appear to be too stubborn to admit they made a mistake.
"Lost in tax revenue". That is, it's the government's money, and the citizens are just thieves who are stealing it.
Let's correct that, shall we?
"It's estimated that somewhere between about $3.5 and $5 billion in Australia every year is saved by the people..."
This'd be fine if it was being "saved by the people", but the reality is it's often being "saved" by unscrupulous business owners who are deliberately working in cash to avoid paying their rightful share of tax.
You can be all libertarian about what a great success this for the citizens or how people have a duty to minimise their taxes or whatever - but in many cases what this means is people legitimately are not paying their fair share and other businesses that do are put at a disadvantage.
As an Australian I would say that people generally are not as opposed to "taxes" as the average American; we see the benefits of them all the time in our healthcare system and so on. Maybe I'm biased - I'm a small business owner - but I certainly want other businesses correctly paying their taxes and not dealing in cash for the sole reason of being able to avoid correct reporting. If they don't, it puts more strain on me as a citizen and more strain on me as a business owner.
If Farmer Bob owns a lot of fields, it might pull him up into being one of the rich elites (hell he might already be a rich elite if he's running a big agribusiness now). Smaller farmers might be able to rent access to their fields and scrape by, but I bet sooner or later some misfortune hits like a cancer that some rich elite will happily have his robo-doctors cure... if Farmer Bob sells his field.
Of course, those of us who don't own farm fields (you know, the vast majority of us) won't be leveraging farm fields in the robo-future.
So, what in AmiMojo's post mentions the Federal Government?
FWIW, yes, since the mid-nineteenth century, after the creation of railroads and the adoption of a national currency, the Federal government has had power over virtually all commerce due to the fact it's allowed to regulate interstate commerce, and the things I just mentioned makes all commerce effectly interstate. I know it's not a popular thing to say, but things change. This changed 150-200 years ago and yet there's always someone who thinks that the government doesn't have the right to regulate something the constitution now gives it the power to do.
Want to change that? Either amend the constitution, or put up real barriers between the states.
The Atrix was exactly where I hoped phones were going and I was so disappointed to see Motorola drop it, and nobody else pick up (I couldn't buy the Atrix because it was Verizon only.) At one point Canonical had an alpha of a Ubuntu/Android hybrid which was intended to be similar, but that seems to have disappeared completely too.
It'd be piddlingly easy to do in hardware to the point I doubt it'd change the cost of the device by more than a few cents - make sure the USB port is bidirectional (it probably is already) and put in an HDMI out (maybe using MHL.) The software... well, as I said, Canonical already had something, Microsoft has Windows 10, there's a few prototype Android desktops out there which, if a community rallied around them, could be made usable.
This is not hard, it's just nobody seems to want to do it.
"You don't suddenly get hundreds of coordinated "protesters" showing up in the same outfits, carrying latest model encrypted cell phones, and all having top-quality lawyers."
oh actually yeah you do. thats just like a 1 fb post.
and if you have 10k protesters then 100 will fit that, no problem.
you seem to misunderstand that a) theres people who just want to fuck shit up and go to protests just to fuck shit up b) it's a hobby/lifestyle for them c) they have guides some of them follow.
very few really to be honest. even finland has 100+ people violent protest at least once a year, kind of organized.
..you can't disable it easily in windows either.
the tunnel especially.
and even when you disable ipv6 on purpose, it will get enabled again! JUST GREAT! (ms is doing it to defeat firewalls/filters for the phone home).
you think iveyyy understood anything about that? hell no.
if he did, then ios would have had arbitrary dpi support for a long time.
and btw windows itself has supported arbitrary dpi for a long, long, long time now. some asian manufacturer volume control apps and such are just the stuff that broke.
also ios fixed resolutions were a cancer on mobile app design for a long time and now theres on the market thousands of app designers who can only draw a photoshop picture for a fixed size screen and can't comprehend the question "what if the screen is 1.5x times wide" or what "if the screen is 4cm across and not 10cm".
yeah because thats not that big of an addition.
it's not worth giving a patent for, frankly.
especially when you could have used your touchscreen phone as a trackpad(without a dock) for a laptop since.. well fucking since 2001 or so.
maybe they're patenting using lighting connector.. but thats another thing, you shouldnt be able to patent the same fucking thing with using a different connector.
Almost all mobile phone providers in the US are switching over. They never really offered full IPv4 in the first place, with their networks fully NATed. But they're introducing real, routable, IPv6.
From personal experience, on T-Mobile if your device supports it, you can even use IPv6 only (that is, your device only gets an IPv6 address, not even a NAT'd IPv4.) If you try to access an IPv4 only site, T-Mobile's DNS provides a virtual IPv6 address that can be used to route outgoing TCP connections to that address via a proxy.
Now, some people would be unhappy with that situation if, say, Comcast were to do the same thing. But I must admit, I suspect 99% of the population would never notice, and over time, the few that do would find, say, their employers scrambling to have IPv6 gateways etc so they can use normal VPNs (the gateways to office networks, not the proxies for bypassing Netflix nation blocks I mean), and other applications that require full two way communication.
IPv6 is very nice. It really is a shame there's so much inertia.
I was under the impression it is under the FCC's remit, as they regulate telecommunications businesses. But either way, if it's just a "We think it should be under this agency's jurisdiction, not that one" thing, then that's at least not terrible.
Like the sibling post however, I'd like to see evidence the FTC will actually step up to the plate on this.
Because, in my experience, libertarians - both self described, and described by the dictionary - would generally rejoice about any reduction in regulation, arguing instead that somehow consumers and ISPs can just sign contracts that agree to the levels of privacy they want.
In the real world, that's bullshit, because you have to hope that an ISP with a service and price level that's acceptable would consider it worth offering.
"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno