Re: Interesting C-Net article.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MEM-TEK
It really is incredible how little the general public knows about police radar and laser, and about radar detectors. And yet the general public seems to be happy blindly paying millions upon millions every year in fines and increased insurance rates. If they only knew what we know.
^ Ain't that the truth.
It's like what I posted on NASIOC as a follow-up:
Quote:
...The non-speed-detection-countermeasures-enthusiast world, as we hobbyists are all too well aware, are often blissful in their ignorance, and will put up a fight to hang on to their misconceptions.
Try telling a guy you meet at the local drive-thru or gas-station that his $80 Cobra is just a lead-weight or that his (you know what) or RMR isn't really jamming anything, and you can expect near fisticuffs.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif
I wish more people would *really* do their homework, before they spend their hard-earned cash.
In a world where we balk and get steaming mad at the malfunctioning soda-vending-machine for eating just a dollar, I can't believe that people continue to buy radar/laser detectors that aren't worth the plastic they're contained in, and then fight to hold on to the misconceptions that they're fed, when others take the time out of their days to try to help.
Er.....do I sound bitter? :p:confused:
Again, thanks, guys, for your posts here and on C|Net. :)
Re: Interesting C-Net article.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MEM-TEK
But the real root of the problem has been our very weak and heavily influenced FCC during the past administration.
You just had to toss out a totally baseless, politically motivated stinker out there, didn't you. That statement was as worthless as the article you are criticising.
Re: Interesting C-Net article.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stealth Stalker
You just had to toss out a totally baseless, politically motivated stinker out there, didn't you. That statement was as worthless as the article you are criticising.
Do you really think so? The FCC is supposed to regulate the use of all frequencies used for communication or signal transmission rather than getting into the act of selling them to the highest bidder. They have crossed the line by granting companies exclusive rights to use certain frequencies rather than simply specifying usage rules which is what the FCC was congressionally mandated to do.
Re: Interesting C-Net article.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MEM-TEK
Do you really think so? The FCC is supposed to regulate the use of all frequencies used for communication or signal transmission rather than getting into the act of selling them to the highest bidder. They have crossed the line by granting companies exclusive rights to use certain frequencies rather than simply specifying usage rules which is what the FCC was congressionally mandated to do.
x2 The FCC is bureaucratic p.o.s. -- point and case 2.4GHz, OLD S-BAND RADAR BTW, hell lets use that for wireless AND cordless phones.. well we saw how great that turned out.
