Which law?
I ask, because many times people point to the first amendment for things like this, but that doesn't apply here.
What exactly do you mean by "protected speech"?
The reason this needs to be illegal is because jamming the signal is not specific to you. You block your signal but you probably will also be blocking it for anyone else in the vicinity. Plus the way these things work they can create interference for other types of signals as well. It isn't the blocking itself that's illegal, but the interference that you're causing.
Try pivpn. It is meant to run on a raspberry pi, but it should work on most Ubuntu and Debian based distributions.
Also this was a simple search away. Please do the simple searching yourself from now on.
Please don't post one word comments and then get annoyed when someone asks you to elaborate.
As a similar comparison, Microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust laws with internet explorer even though everyone could pretty much install any browser they wanted to on Windows.
In legal proceedings, statements like this are allegations. They are not considered to be true or factual until proven in court. You'll see the word allegedly used even if it seems very obvious that someone did something because that is the correct way to report it.
It would depend how regulations are written. It's perfectly conceivable that these can be allowed to operate using a very low power level that wouldn't interfere with the larger network, especially if the use case is for things like substations that are already isolated.
OP didn't make an incorrect statement though. What they stated was an important part of the equation. I think a lot of people don't take that type of thing into account and they will read what this post says and assume that Pfizer should be charging $13, or maybe something pretty close like 15 or 20. Clearly 1400 is far far too high, 13 is too low. A reasonable price allows the manufacturer to be successful while not gouging consumers lies somewhere in between, but much much closer to the low end than the high. To me that's really what the person you are responding to is giving evidence for.
Looks like I replied to the wrong comment.
The person you had replied to originally commented on not wanting to have the possibility of everything being broken by losing a single device. I think that's important that everyone realize that some sort of a backup plan is needed, whether that be back up codes, saving the original QR code, or being able to use multiple devices to authenticate.
At any rate, I should have replied to someone else. Sorry for any confusion.
view more: next ›
flawedFraction
joined 1 year ago