It would be closer to "disturbing the peace" than "disorderly conduct". But you'd be doing it on private property. What would happen is that the theater would ask you to leave. If you didn't, then you'd be breaking trespassing laws. If you became unruly when they asked, then you'd also be breaking the laws that you mention.
Nonetheless, the act of yelling fire in a theater is not against the law. The law I think you were trying to talk about that actually comes close is that you are not allowed to say things that a reasonable person would expect to cause a riot or somesuch -- but I don't think that a reasonable person would expect any such thing, since that's certainly not what would happen.
In the old days, when theaters were massive lethal firetraps that caught on fire with alarming frequency and (we're talking 19th century), that equation would be completely different.
I doubt it. They are already charging the maximum amount they can for internet service. If they thought for a second that they could charge more without reducing overall revenue, they'd be doing it right now.
Also, even if they raised prices on internet service, they are extremely unlikely to raise them so much that you'd be paying what you paid for internet + cable TV.
There's also the aspect of cable cutting that has nothing to do with money: trying to get away from doing business with cable companies to the greatest extent possible. If I had any internet option other than Comcast, for instance, I'd jump on it in a hot second.
(Disclaimer: I do subscribe to basic cable, because Comcast charges me less for basic cable + internet than for internet alone. I haven't bothered to hook up the TV converter box, though.)
"If it's illegal to modify a game console or cable modem that you own, or sell hardware or software intended for such modification"
It is not, and never has been, illegal to do these things. It may be a violation of ToS, but not illegal. However, they do hide behind the same non-circumvention clause of the DMCA, so if you have to break security measures to do it, you may be breaking the law.
I also like how they call themselves the Internet Security Task Force (ISTF). This is obviously intended to cause confusion with the legitimate and not-corporate-lobby-group, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). They're probably hoping that they will benefit from the established legitimacy of the IETF.
I suspect a big part of how this happened is that there are so few people in Wyoming. The population of the entire state is a little more than half a million people. And about half of that population is employed be the agricultural industry.
My guess is that at least 25% of the population thinks this kind of law is a good thing because they think it will help them to keep their jobs.
the new law makes it a crime to gather data about the condition of the environment across most of the state if you plan to share that data with the state or federal government.
No problem, then. Simply gather the data without planning to share it with state or federal governments. Instead, put it up on the web somewhere and make a HUGE stink in the media about it. That seems like it would be perfectly legal under the law.
Actually, she's a very intelligent person. She was just successfully brainwashed by the propaganda that we are sold from the day we're born: that if it's from the US, it's good, if it's from anywhere else, it's suspect, and if it's from certain countries, like Mexico, it's dangerous.
This was what triggered my question. A huge portion of my internet use doesn't involve the web in any way (and I have several machines devoted to internet use that don't touch the web ever). The web is not the internet.
Hmm, I was unfamiliar with the "outstanding statement" definition of "corker", but looking it up I learned two things: yes, that's an accepted definition, and the people in my part of the country don't use that definition ever.
Around here, we use the Irish definition: an odd, unique, peculiar, special, etc. person. Not necessarily bad, though not good either.
I think that if you're "selling the problem", they are already in unethical territory even if the problem does really exist.
If a problem is large enough that people are seeking solutions to it, then it doesn't need to be "sold". It only needs to be mentioned in the context of "this product (or me, if I'm a consultant) will ease that".
I recently had a discussion that highlighted this incredibly well, although on an individual basis. I was talking about how, while I tend to dislike soda, I do enjoy Coke that is imported from Mexico (probably because it still uses actual sugar). She told me that she won a case of Mexican Coke a year ago, but was so freaked out about food safety (since it was from Mexico, doncha know) that she threw it all away.
Then why are the cable companies lying and saying that they are offering a awesome packages that everyone's happy with? If they said something like "we'd love to change this, but we can't do that until we negotiate new contracts", then they could at least maintain a little bit of dignity.
There’s a lot of value in our triple-play packaging right now and it’s a simpler sale.
There's a lot of value for the cable companies. But for a lot of people (including myself), those triple-play packages have very little value. They cost a LOT and consist mostly of things that I don't want. That's the exact opposite of "a lot of value".
Once again, companies, "value" is not a constant that can be computed. It's completely subjective. Only your customers, each individually, can make the call for how much "value" you are offering.