|
|
Zzzzzzzzzzzz... 
|
|
|
|
|
How on earth did this even get passed? That's like saying it is illegal to install another OS on your machine.
=====
\ | /
\|/
|
|-----|
| |
|_ |
_) | /
_) __/_
_) ____
| /|
| / |
| |
|-----|
|
=====
===
=
|
|
|
|
|
Lloyd Atkinson wrote: How on earth
Only on Earth, and only in one part. 
Tell me again how many politicians it would take to fill the Pacific Ocean?
|
|
|
|
|
I'd start with the Atlantic Ocean. Less transportation required. From there move on to other bodies of water as necessary.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
None, unfortunately. Due to all the hot air they are filled with, they float too well to sink in water preferring instead to form a layer, or crust on the surface, like pond scum. It is only the quantity of BS they also contain that prevents them from floating away completely...
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: air they are filled with, they float too well to sink
We could poke holes in them first.
|
|
|
|
|
Regrettably, someone thought of that, and they tend to surround themselves with armed police who seem hell-bent on preventing such pro-social behaviour.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: how many politicians it would take to fill the Pacific Ocean?
Only one way to find out. 
|
|
|
|
|
Who cares. Start packin' em in.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Don't give them any ideas! 
|
|
|
|
|
Lloyd Atkinson wrote: How on earth did this even get passed?
Passed? It is an adminstrative ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
It's difficult to understand why the Administration would be interested in keeping cell phones locked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought maybe it had something to do with government mandated tracking software.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: It's difficult to understand why the Administration would be interested in keeping cell phones locked.
I doubt that your implicit or even explicit suggestion is the reason.
Rather the administrative ruling was based on a best guess interpretation of the intent of the framers of the original encompassing bill.
|
|
|
|
|
That is the funniest thing I've read all week.
Thank you for that.
|
|
|
|
|
It's really not the same. It's quite reasonable really, a network gives a discount on the phone in exchange for signing up to a contract they don't want you cancelling the contract and taking the phone to a different network so the phone is locked. Once the contract is over they'll unlock your phone and you can take it wherever you like.
If you don't want a phone that's locked to a network then you'll just have to pay the full price for it.
|
|
|
|
|
SK Genius wrote: a network gives a discount on the phone in exchange for signing up to a contract they don't want you cancelling the contract and taking the phone to a different network so the phone is locked
They already have a solution to that. You pay about $400 if you want out of your contract (I think that value goes down over time). I suspect the real reason for preventing the phone from being unlocked is so you can't use a SIM while you travel in a foreign country to reduce the cost.
|
|
|
|
|
you can still unlock your phone, if your carrier lets you. or, you can pay full price (ie. no carrier subsidy) and get an unlocked phone.
|
|
|
|
|
That's the kind of rule that everyone ignores, even the moralfags.
That independent phone store on the corner will still unlock your phone for a couple of bucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't this one of the signs of societal breakdown, creating unenforceable laws/rules.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
A complete waste of taxpayer money, instead of finding ways to reduce spending, or reducing criminal activity they create a law that make what should be legal into a criminal activity.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure and it is unenforceable so it undermines the credibility of the legal system (I know it has no credibility now), undermines to confidence of the enforcers (police, inspectors, whoever) and reduces to effectiveness of society.
I know it is only a small thing but these stupid bastards need to be taken out and garroted, waste of a good bullet!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Give them each a garrote, put them in a room, tell them only one will be let out. Expend only one bullet.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
