The Nightstar Zoo
http://zoo.nightstar.net/

What i want for xmas.
http://zoo.nightstar.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5015
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Pronto [ Sat Dec 06, 2003 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  What i want for xmas.

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm

Mmm. Heaven, on 9 volts.

Author:  The General [ Sat Dec 06, 2003 2:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Magnificent. I want one too.

Not as good as the ones that give the cell-user tumors or make the phones emit supersonic shrieks that cause their ears to bleed, but it'll do.

Author:  Gerald [ Sat Dec 06, 2003 2:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

That is like the coolest thing ever.

Who cares that it probably violates an untold number of FCC regulations. Everyone needs one of those.

Author:  Pronto [ Sat Dec 06, 2003 3:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

Gerald wrote:
That is like the coolest thing ever.

Who cares that it probably violates an untold number of FCC regulations. Everyone needs one of those.


Probably? No probably about it. :) But yes! Everyone needs one.

Author:  Raif [ Sat Dec 06, 2003 9:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

How long before they fall under myriad sanctions? :)

Author:  Pronto [ Sat Dec 06, 2003 9:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

They already do. Highly illegal to use a device that blocks an alocated frequency. Punishable by 20 years in the slammer.

Author:  Raif [ Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes, but what of making and selling them?

Author:  Pronto [ Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Nope, thats legal, because there are legitimate uses.

Author:  DarthBaboon [ Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

Such as? I mean besides the one a spy would think of (which is actualy the same one that the public wants).

And remember, it's only illegal if you get caught. :twisted:

Author:  Pronto [ Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:10 am ]
Post subject: 

The owner of a property could block or jam certain portions of the RF spectrum.
Pertinent to this discussion, a theatre or a restuarant could make itself cellphone free. But if people start walking around blocking cell access in places they don't have the authority to, the authorities can will start apprehending and prosecuting.

Author:  Pronto [ Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pronto wrote:
They already do. Highly illegal to use a device that blocks an alocated frequency. Punishable by 20 years in the slammer.


I was wrong. It's 'up to 20 years' in Canada. It's only a 1 year max in the states.

Author:  level5nerd [ Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

So let me get this straight. You're criticising us for locking away possible terrorists, but your country gives people twenty years in prison for disrupting a phone call, whereas here it's only a misdemeanor?

Author:  Pronto [ Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

level5nerd wrote:
So let me get this straight. You're criticising us for locking away possible terrorists, but your country gives people twenty years in prison for disrupting a phone call, whereas here it's only a misdemeanor?


I'm not sure where to start with the misconceptions...
No, I'm merely remarking on the US' practise of arresting people for "identity theft, document fraud and immigration violations" and calling it a victory over terrorism.

'Up to...", "max" as in 'maximum'. And yes, Canadian laws are tougher. Which might have something to do with our lower per capita crime rate and prison occupancy.

Interfering with RF communications is taken much more seriously in my country, it would seem. Not surprisingly, as we rely on radios a lot more. Lives depend on them.

Author:  gwalla [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pronto wrote:
Pronto wrote:
They already do. Highly illegal to use a device that blocks an alocated frequency. Punishable by 20 years in the slammer.


I was wrong. It's 'up to 20 years' in Canada. It's only a 1 year max in the states.


Yeah, but it'd be interfering with a commercial service. I'm sure the FCC could think of some way, concerning some of the strongarm tactics they use against pirate radio broadcasters.

Author:  level5nerd [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pronto wrote:
'Up to...", "max" as in 'maximum'. And yes, Canadian laws are tougher. Which might have something to do with our lower per capita crime rate and prison occupancy.


Down here, anyone who said anything like that would be railroaded by the left.

Author:  Pronto [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

level5nerd wrote:
Pronto wrote:
'Up to...", "max" as in 'maximum'. And yes, Canadian laws are tougher. Which might have something to do with our lower per capita crime rate and prison occupancy.


Down here, anyone who said anything like that would be railroaded by the left.


I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by "the left".
I suspect that that and an absense of 'railroading' is why I live in the 'True North'.

Author:  DarthBaboon [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:10 am ]
Post subject: 

Pronto wrote:
level5nerd wrote:
Pronto wrote:
'Up to...", "max" as in 'maximum'. And yes, Canadian laws are tougher. Which might have something to do with our lower per capita crime rate and prison occupancy.


Down here, anyone who said anything like that would be railroaded by the left.


I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by "the left".
I suspect that that and an absense of 'railroading' is why I live in the 'True North'.


The left refers to liberals. The right Refers to conservatives.

Author:  Pronto [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:13 am ]
Post subject: 

DarthBaboon wrote:
The left refers to liberals. The right Refers to conservatives.


Ok. With ya so far.
Now, what do the tags mean? Anything?

Author:  DarthBaboon [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:15 am ]
Post subject: 

Pronto wrote:
DarthBaboon wrote:
The left refers to liberals. The right Refers to conservatives.


Ok. With ya so far.
Now, what do the tags mean? Anything?


Tag? You know what liberals and conservatives mean right?

Author:  Ogredude [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:24 am ]
Post subject: 

Nope, I sure don't. Because they seem to mean opposite what their dictionary definitions mean.

Conservatives should want to preserve the current order, and liberals should want to change it... Yet liberals are all for more government interference, and conservatives are generally against more government. Except when more government could interfere with our private lives, then both sides are totally for more government. But at least the conservatives on the whole aren't pushing for a total Nanny State.

Author:  Pronto [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:04 am ]
Post subject: 

I know what liberal means, and I know what conservative means, but, as Oggy says, those meanings have nothing to do with any political party.

Author:  Raif [ Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:06 am ]
Post subject: 

Inconveniently the parties too often move to the other side of those black and white liberal/conservative lines. ;) The republicans are seen as conservative and are moving us toward the nanny state right now, for instance.

The distinction used to mean something... but that day is long gone. Now it best serves for insulting and/or propaganda, since nobody can really refute.

Author:  DarthBaboon [ Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:35 am ]
Post subject: 

Yah, theve pretty much summed it up. It's hard today to say your conservitive or liberal, because the definitions have been so twisted and mutated.

But on the over all, the traditional role of liberals is to urge for change in any way, and conservitives to look at things from afar and make sure the change is good. Or at least thats my view. But then again, those definitions don't really hold meaning any more.

Gah. I should have been born a generation or two sooner for so many reasons.

Author:  Maveric [ Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What i want for xmas.

Pronto wrote:

Dangerous too. What if there is an emergency at home, and someone missed the call?

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/