Re: Re: Re: Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
I believe it is known as courtesy, a concept that seems here to have fallen into disfavor.
Having been on trains and public transportation in the US, for the most part, the courtesy still exists. And usually it exists on planes too. However, when you start talking loudly to someone else on a Japanese train, you very quickly find the whole train car staring at you...that is often enough to get you to shut up. Having the flight attendant come over and ask you to keep it down might be enough, and making it a law is overkill.
There is already too much stuff in the law-books that is poorly enforced and I'd hope by now we'd recognize as a nation that you can't regulate good behavior.
Not again - another impeachment idiot running around spewing the latest thing they heard on talk radio.
You know, a few years ago I'd agree with you. Those talk radio guys are wacko and wrong most of the time. But over the last couple years, they've been wacko and right. Kinda hard to call someone a wacko when what they are spewing is hitting the mark based on material generated by the government and released through official or unofficial means after they said it. They may still be wrong most of the time, but hit a couple truths and people start to believe you.
Not so long ago we would have been calling them prophets or truthsayers or readers.
Re: Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
You can still use those phones: "`(B) LIMITATION- The term `mobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'." -- Bill Text
Which is why I think this is driven more by the airlines than by end-users. What I hate about this is that it can then be used to prohibit use of cell phones, regardless to whether it is a voice call or a text message with a really annoying ring tone. I've sat on planes where folks were using the in-flight phones and they were just as obnoxious (and from a security perspective, dumb, since they were communicating sensitive data like IP addresses and passwords to log in to the system they were trying to troubleshoot at 30k feet above the earth) as cell phone users.
Having been on the trains in Japan, there are much better ways of dealing with chatty cathy's on their cell phones.
PS. to the guy getting slow Internet, you should consider buying a DOCSIS 3 modem online, and installing it yourself. Two reasons: if you currently have a DOCSIS 2 modem, you *may* get better performance from the more recent technology, EVEN if your provider uses DOCSIS 2. Second, most of us pay a $7/mo lease for our cable modem, where if you buy it once for $90, you can save money.
I have a brand new Motorola SURFboard SB6121 modem I bought for $70. Didn't help much.
Just checking... are you sure you're not confusing bytes with bits
Doubtful. Most companies advertise Mbps and most speedcheck sites do the same. Even so, most companies also advertise "up-to" and from personal experience, my ISP advertised "up-to" 50 Mbps for my $73.00 a month connection fee, and I am lucky if I get 15 Mbps sustained (I just got 18.88 Mbps when I checked now.) I am lucky if I get above 10 Mbps at night or on the weekend...oversubscribed lines and all (remember, cable is a shared medium.) For the first couple milliseconds, I get 50 Mbps, but then it drops way down. Most of the speedcheck sites show that my connection is average for my ISP, at 15 Mbps, even though they promise up to 50 Mbps.
They finally figured out what DEFCON and the other hacker conventions have known for a number of years?
Hell, wall of sheep is all they need to prove that the "good guys" aren't good at computer security. Most of wall of sheep is folks trolling, but there still are an awful lot of unencrypted SMTP/POP3 traffic at any of those conferences going to .mil and .gov servers.
Actually, plenty of police agencies do this already and find it effective to some extent. But it has to be paired with actual enforcement obviously.
In So. Cal., PDs use speed carts and electronic speed radar signs to do the same thing with varying success. People still speed by them, but most people do slow down. Supposedly the carts in our city have cameras, but they aren't actually used for enforcement, but to protect the carts. A couple new carts actually have flashing blue and red lights which blink when the car goes too fast by the cart, but I noticed that they removed them after a couple times I saw them, probably because of the distraction and/or the legal issues surrounding red lights on vehicles not complying with the CVC.
BTW, is driving with tinted like that windows legal in Frisco?
I am not that familiar with Texas motor vehicle laws, but I suspect like other states, it is only illegal for commoners. Police officers, commercial vehicle operators (taxi/private transportation,) and government officials are likely exempt either by the law or by professional courtesy.
Someone holding up a sign warning of a speed trap, or a person who has purchased a radar detector?
Radar Detectors are legal in most states (Washington DC and Vermont being the two exceptions.) Radar Jammers are illegal federally and Laser Jammers in quite a few states.
If your radar detector only receives signals and alerts you, it is perfectly safe to have except in those two places. The problem is that some of the devices out there called radar detectors do some sort of jamming, where they send signals back to the radar device that attempt to confuse it.
yep, there are always idiotic cowards willing to give away my freedoms and security
FTFY. There is absolutely no security value to stopping these things, even if they are real bullets (with powder and priming cap, which is highly doubtful since I am quite sure the manufacturer who applies the acrylic doesn't want anything to do with live bullets when subjected to hot acrylic,) and the only security danger posed by stopping a whole line of travelers at the TSA checkpoint over this is the added risk of having a large number of people in a kill-zone for an extended period of time.
If you really have a problem with them in luggage, treat them like full water bottles and snow-globes (or cupcakes) and have the traveler leave the line to find a post office to send the item, or throw it away.
Logic and reason...the TSA has proven time and time again they have neither of these skills.
I wonder if any of the 22 people formerly known as "defendant" have recourse to punishing Prince for the suits.
IANAL, but from what I understand listening to Ken @ PopeHat / DTD / FCT all these years, they only could if they already responded to the complaint. I am pretty sure most of them were still looking for lawyers or may not have even been aware yet that they were being sued.
I think this is the key. If you're starting new OR you have an older phone, T-Mobile is more expensive.
I bought my phone from Amazon, at a significantly cheaper price than what T-Mobile or Best Buy wanted for the phone, and had no problem bringing it in to T-Mobile. I already was using them for a data card so I already had an account. The only problem is that AT&T phones and T-Mobile phones aren't entirely compatible, so you have to be real careful to buy a phone that is compatible with T-Mobile (they use different frequencies for their high speed data, but the phone and 2G frequencies are shared.)
If the phone you acquire is decent enough, it probably makes sense to switch to T-Mobile at the end of the subsidy.
It is NEVER cheaper to buy the phone, either on subsidy or otherwise, directly from the vendor. This is basic capitalism. When dealing with a monopoly, you will lose every time.
The economics clearly don't work out to start with T-Mobile.
I disagree. The cost of their service is half of what I paid for AT&T. I had a bill for one phone, discounted through my employer, for $130 a month (for 4GB of data, voice and text.) I am now paying exactly the same for a cell phone (unlimited everything* - but they do cap high speed, though I've never seen it) AND a data device (4.5GB per month.) Several surveys have shown that the average price for T-Mobile is below AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint.
I don't have anything to do with T-Mobile other than being their customer (and I have contracts with their competitors too,) and I've been quite happy with them.
The only reason the NSA found out was because of whistleblowers.
The only way the DoJ found out was because of whistleblowers. Again, the NSA has nothing to do with this story other than they had a contractor who was reviewed by USIS and then allegedly blew the whistle on NSA (we all know he did, the allegedly is clearly here for legal reasons.)
That and also clearing the Navy Yards shooter, who was clearly having mental issues, and the dozen or so Federal employees with financial conflicts such as not paying their taxes for a number of years.
the article doesn't say whether the whistle was blown or whether it was a result of a subpoena.
Oops...missed that part. From the article:
The civil lawsuit was filed by the Justice Department under the False Claims Act. The department adopted claims previously made under seal by Blake Percival, identified as the director of Fieldwork Services at USIS between 2001 and 2011. The suit accuses the company of filing false claims, making false statements and breach of contract.
Percival originally filed a whistleblower lawsuit in 2011 alleging that the Northern Virginia-based firm expedited checks in bulk using the “Blue Zone” software on checks that were never actually performed, according to the DOJ complaint.
I was thinking something along those same lines. How exactly did they get the "internal USIS documents"?
I suspect, based on my very limited experience here, the DoJ discovered a bunch of questionable background investigations and decided to subpoena the company for any internal documents relating to the process of performing background checks. The company, instead of pulling a Enron (shredding the documents,) decided it was in their best interest to come clean and cooperate (especially, since, they say that all of the employees involved have been fired or no longer work for the company.) It is entirely possible that someone within the company blew the whistle, but not necessarily so (the article doesn't say whether the whistle was blown or whether it was a result of a subpoena.)
So taking internal documents that show impropriety from an entity and then releasing them to expose that impropriety is okay when the entity is someone else but when someone takes their documents to prove their impropriety, then they get pissed and want him murdered for it.
I see where you are coming from, but at least in this place it can be that they didn't actually release them, but they were attached to a subpoena which is public records as part of a court case. The civil lawsuit was already filed against the USIS by the DoJ in Alabama, and except in certain cases, most lawsuits and their associated documentation are available to the public.