A directional antenna will increase the broadcast power even without an amplifier being built in. It is because the power is being directed instead of just going everywhere, as a result it is much stronger in that one direction.
Kind of like how you take a Mag light and remove the top, the light shines in all directions but pretty weak. You put the reflector on it and suddenly it seems much more powerful in the direction that you point it, but the power output at the light bulb is the same.
"In the meantime, any YouTuber who supports themselves with ads and just wanted to show off the level to their subscribers, or perhaps added some good commentary to the footage, will lose revenue (as well as gain an unnecessary headache.)"
Considering all the issues that keep happening around this, why have they now fixed this already? It is REALLY simple, when something gets flagged all money should start dumping into a holding account where it stays until the copyright questions are answered. Soon as proper party is identified the holding account dumps funds to that person. TADA, the ContentID trolling has been killed.
Sure, that solution is not perfect. The creator still might have to wait for their money, but that is hell of a lot better than getting told. "Yeah, sorry about that, our bad, all that money is just gone."
"They mean they want manufacturers to take steps to prevent firmware from making the devices send waves at a higher output than safety guidelines (as far as I can see) but this can be done by physically limiting the output to the desired power levels."
There are issues though with trying to physically limit that. There are cases where you can legally go above what is normally allowed. For example, if your using directional antennas and building a point to point wifi connection you are allowed to use more power than if your just blasting out in all directions.
Talking of antennas though, the antennas make it hard to physically limit the power of the broadcast because if you change the antenna you can change the broadcast power even though the internal chip thinks it is sending the same amount.
I'm sure there are some others that can explain this far better than me. Personally, I'm right around that area of knowledge where you could say, "I know just enough to be dangerous".
There are all kinds of examples throughout history of things people thought were safe and then later found out were actually bad. Mad hatters were the result of people using mercury as a water repellent on their hats, people used to use lead to make nipples for baby bottles. You could compile a pretty long list of examples such as those.
Are all our wireless communications slowly killing all of us? I personally don't think so and have yet to see a study that makes me think there is a significant risk. Most people seem to have much more important factors in their lives. Things like eating too much McDonald's is killing far more people than cell phone radiation.
Not only cell phones, but think about this, the study looks to be 2008 and was on people using cell phones for at least 10 years. Ok, so now think back and remember what did cell phones look like in 1998? Unless I am greatly mistaken, the radiation output by our cell phones has dropped drastically sense then.
When that person is demanding major changes to existing infrastructure plus asking for $250,000.... Um.... Hell yes I would want them to prove it.
On second thought though, sense your cool with that....
I have this terrible pain being caused by your having posted here. It is greatly effecting my ability to function. I am pretty sure though that the pain will clear up with a discounted rate of only $100,000. If you would please send that to me via Western Union.
Ok, so is it just me that finds multiple serious issues with their whole logic? If wifi radiation is really causing this issue then what about all modern cell phones? You know, the wifi enabled devices that constantly send out probe requests to look for 'preferred' networks? You really going to tell me that you don't have any students with wifi turned on?
I also don't get the obsession with looking at wifi access points. They should never be broadcasting with more power than your average device simply because it is pointless to do so. Wifi is a two way thing, having a base point blasting out a signal so you can pick it up from half mile away does you no good unless your device can send a signal strong enough to get back. Knowing that, what should worry you more, the access point your rarely getting very close too, or the laptop that is sitting over your family jewels?
"If a few "customers" come along and take more than they're alloted"
More than they are alloted? Please explain how it is clear that "Unlimited" comes with an allotment. When I see unlimited I think of well.... unlimited as in, without limit.
Also, while they are complaining about those evil people tethering, I can tell you that it is quite easy to use these massive quantities of data on a device. I for example currently have a phone with a screen that exceeds 1080p. So I can jump on a video stream in full HD. Oh, and I have a 64 gig card in my phone, so I can easily download any files direct to my phone and then transfer them to the computer. Of course there is also the fun things you can do like hosting a TOR node on your phone....
Maybe you should go back to school. If after reading this twice, the second time "reading it slowly", you still don't understand it then you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Let me see if maybe I can explain things a bit simpler for your lower reading level. Dan Bull is not trying to control how copies of his music are used. He is complaining about people claiming copyright on his music. Claiming you have copyright on a song is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from making copies of a song. So the issue here is someone else trying to control copies of his song.
You most certainly could have that policy against abusers. If you are infringing on others copyrights (as in you really are just infringing) then it is reasonable to loose your account after a few strikes.
The very same is true of abusing the system. If you are making copyright claims against content that is not yours, then it is perfectly reasonable to loose that power after a few strikes. It does not matter that your 4th complaint is valid, just as it doesn't matter that the guys 4th video was an original creation.
Not that I really expect you to bother reading this but, you must be really stupid, or you have no trouble twisting things to fit your agenda.
After years of reading the articles here on this site, not once have I found them supporting the idea of "uploading a 100 million dollar movie". The closest they come to that is simply pointing out how stupid it is to waste money fighting a fight you can never win.
The really stupid argument you make though of comparing this with someone sharing a movie just shows how little you understand of what is happening. This is not a case of Dan Bull complaining about someone "stealing" his work. This is about someone claiming ownership and stealing ad revenue, and stealing that money from some kid.
So this is not like me uploading a movie and sharing it. This is like me claiming that I made the movie and demanding all the profits from that movie.
I think the point being made was, Why would you want to wear a representation of a device used to brutally execute thousands of people? One of those people having been your God?
When you stop and think about it, using the cross really is a very weird symbol. After all, someone being executed on a cross was a very common thing for the time. What makes Christ special was that he did not stay dead.
The cross is like the Roman electric chair or gallows. I can't imagine anyone choosing those to honor someone who died from them....
It seems worth it? Really? You are cool with them knowing pretty much everything about your life in exchange for what she offers?
Lets look at this another way, you ask how is she expected to work without all that sharing. My question is, Why does she need to share all that? I can't think of a single thing she does that could not be handled locally on the computer.
If it was smart then it wouldn't incorrectly tag URLs that have nothing to do with the movie it is claiming was being pirated. It really would try to avoid doing something like to URLs belonging to a popular blog that is very likely to call them on it.
Is it just me that thinks at least part of this is extremely easy to solve? All police now have mandatory drug test, anyone positive for weed is fired on the spot. At that point you just have one or two more to identify from the video. As an added bonus, who knows how many dirty cops you will find that have other drugs in their system.
"Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000."
This is a prime example of why I am loosing faith in the government (or well, pretty much totally lost it actually). A permit cost $1,500 but not having it gives you a $1000 fine? So basically I can save $500 by breaking the law?