Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #1127 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-03-01 19:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-03-13 17:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 65 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-01 20:22 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-01 22:19 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-02 12:52 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2014-03-02 11:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-04 16:34 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-04 16:26 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-13 00:40 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:20 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-16 17:41 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:40 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-12 22:43 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-13 09:39 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:01 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:37 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-13 23:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-13 23:30 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 17:19 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-14 09:01 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2014-03-15 20:49 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-16 17:23 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-16 22:23 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:39 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 09:57 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 13:42 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:53 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-03-14 11:03 -0500
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-14 16:13 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-03-14 13:18 -0500
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-14 13:22 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:59 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-16 15:07 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:46 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-03-16 09:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-16 10:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 12:03 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:45 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-17 13:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-17 14:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:41 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-16 18:03 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 12:16 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-14 14:16 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-03-14 13:24 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 15:02 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 16:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 17:00 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 09:03 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-16 10:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 18:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 03:28 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 21:15 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 13:41 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 03:26 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:23 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-13 11:27 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:09 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-13 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-03-13 15:39 -0600
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-03-02 19:24 +1100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 17:57 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 14:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lft6qo$rpl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1554 |
On 2014-03-13 11:27:46 +0000, Huge said: > One of the (many) differences I have noticed between the USA and the > UK (I live in the UK, my parents have lived in the USA for ~35 years, > I go there a lot) is that American drivers seem to regard driving as an > activity not worthy of paying much attention to. And this was true even > before cell phones became ubiquitous, but they have, as you rightly say, > made the problem much worse. I think this is related to the differences in land mass, and public transportation mainly. People here simply must own cars and do a lot of driving, unless they live in one of the two or three dozen large cities that have a working comprehensive public transportation infrastructure. If you live in Montana, or anywhere in Oregon but Portland, you're going to be driving a LOT. My wife's from Iowa and the closest grocery store to her little town is a 20 mile drive away, thanks to the Wal-mart that pushed almost every smaller business out of the area. In the UK you are lucky, there's a train coming even now, even to the smallest of towns (mostly). When I visited I had a Eurail pass and I enjoyed just getting onto a random train, simply to see what was over the next hill. Of course ridership is high - your gasoline is so much more expensive than ours that it boggles my mind. I can drive from Oregon to Iowa for $300 or less and that's without a particularly economic driving style. It'd be at least a thousand bucks if we paid British prices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | greymausg <maus@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 11:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnli351o.387.maus@gmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #1546 |
On 2014-03-13, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-01 20:22:54 +0000, Huge said: > >> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. > > While this place has turned into a bit of a banana republic in recent > years, we're still doing OK. My hope, though, is that they pass all > kinds of crazy laws and make cell phones much more expensive and > possibly illegal to own and operate. Fully a third of the drivers on > the road these days are chatting, texting, or playing video games > instead of concentrating on driving. > My favourite was the guy I met on a narrow bridge, talking on his phone , and shaving at the same time as driving. -- maus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 15:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vApUu.26776$6Q1.4400@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #1555 |
greymausg wrote: > My favourite was the guy I met on a narrow bridge, talking on his phone > , and shaving at the same time as driving. > Yet, this is nothing new. My favorite was coming nose-to-nose with a light twin engine airplane as I flew initial approach to a military runway at 1500'. I was doing 230 kts and, being young and a bit crazy, I rolled inverted then passed directly over him with something less than 100' separation. The other pilot never even looked up from the newspaper he was reading! Some of the studies regarding "distracted" drivers make interesting reading. Many even try to minimize the difference between actively texting and simple conversations with passengers but the majority present a scary picture. Judging by the success of various legislative efforts trying to eliminate the hazard I am beginning to think that only Darwin's principles will eventually eliminate the problem. -- Will Honea
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 19:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bng85sFsangU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1127 |
On 2/03/2014 6:45 AM, RS Wood wrote: > From the "hello, oligarchy" department: > Title: Inside the battle to kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone > Author: Derek Khanna > Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:54:54 -0500 > Link: http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663871/s/37a611bc/sc/46/l/0L0Stheguardian0N0Ccommentisfree0C20A140Cfeb0C280Cstupidest0Elaw0Eillegal0Eto0Eunlock0Eyour0Ephone/story01.htm > Podcast Download URL: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/28/1393598356497/ca8815e9-d0a8-4edb-8b9d-a5ec3165ff98-140x84.jpeg > > Derek Khanna: But it won't be for long, thanks to another lesson in how > consumer tech can overcome telecom cronies > Derek Khanna[1] > > [image 2] > > Links: > [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/derek-khanna (link) > [2]: http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663871/s/37a611bc/sc/46/mf.gif (image) > It looks to me as if it's highly debatable whether it was ever unlawful to unlock one's phone. The Library of Congress didn't make it unlawful, it merely removed an exemption that would have stopped it from being unlawful, if it ever was. The significant problem with the DCMA is the considerable uncertainty about its scope coupled with large companies that are willing to throw their weight around, and individuals who have little ability to test the law without risking huge penalties. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lftk6g$mk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1135 |
On 2014-03-02 08:24:26 +0000, Sylvia Else said: > On 2/03/2014 6:45 AM, RS Wood wrote: >> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: >> Title: Inside the battle to kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal >> to unlock your phone >> Author: Derek Khanna >> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:54:54 -0500 >> Link: >> http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663871/s/37a611bc/sc/46/l/0L0Stheguardian0N0Ccommentisfree0C20A140Cfeb0C280Cstupidest0Elaw0Eillegal0Eto0Eunlock0Eyour0Ephone/story01.htm >> >> Podcast Download URL: >> http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/28/1393598356497/ca8815e9-d0a8-4edb-8b9d-a5ec3165ff98-140x84.jpeg >> >> >> Derek Khanna: But it won't be for long, thanks to another lesson in how >> consumer tech can overcome telecom cronies >> Derek Khanna[1] >> >> [image 2] >> >> Links: >> [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/derek-khanna (link) >> [2]: >> http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663871/s/37a611bc/sc/46/mf.gif >> (image) >> > > It looks to me as if it's highly debatable whether it was ever unlawful > to unlock one's phone. The Library of Congress didn't make it unlawful, > it merely removed an exemption that would have stopped it from being > unlawful, if it ever was. > > The significant problem with the DCMA is the considerable uncertainty > about its scope coupled with large companies that are willing to throw > their weight around, and individuals who have little ability to test > the law without risking huge penalties. > > Sylvia. I'm wondering where in the world the LoC got a mandate to permit or deny things that private citizens may or may not do with their own property. What's next, the Capitol cafeteria sanctioning people for installing unapproved hummingbird feeders?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web