I've fixed your formatting, Rob. Glad to help!

A test comment

#29 looks like Michelle Boyd of Team Unicorn

Great! We'll see you there!

http://boingboing.net/2011/08/11/britain-consider...

The first of a series of stupid and Draconian measures to be taken...

No, but it does shield the antenna from extraneous static, other wifi signals and background radiation all of which attenuate the signal.

Placing an uncut can over the antenna won't completely block the signal unless you completely cover the antenna and seal all slits and gaps with aluminum foil. This is why your neighbors house leaks EM signals like a sieve - it isn't completely shielded.

This does work. empircal evidence alone will tell you how effective it is.

Ted Danson is in there.

Wrong.

It is a matter of principle. We have rights that protect us from illegal search and seizure and if you have a right you are free to exercise it whether you are guilty or innocent.

To say "only the guilty have anything to fear" is to say that it is okay to assume that you can be arrested and tried on any policeman's whim. Because, after all, only the guilty have anything to fear from a court of law. Right? Wrong. Everyone has to fear a justice system that is out of control.

The law is so complicated these days that you can be charged for any of a laundry list of things if the cops thing think that you are a threat to their authority. This is why we HAVE rights. To protect us from authorities that have the power to remove real criminals. Trust me, if there was a real threat or a real suspicion they would have had a warrant there in an instant.

The cops attempt to search the car was an exercise in flexing authority. He was right to flex his rights in response.

Looking forward to seeing it when it comes in!

I wonder if he used a balloon?