You don't have a right to impose hidden conditions when you sell a product. Nothing beyond what the law states.
Apple is open about the conditions, as open as they have to be under the law. I wish it weren't so, but there's nothing unusual about Apple's EULAs, however repugnant the practise may seem.
This solution is simple. Force customers to sign a contract at POS. You already do it whenever you buy things with a credit card. The customer must be provided a paper copy of the contract they signed.
That's fucking brilliant. And you can walk around with your lawyer, all day every day, to advise you whether to sign all those contracts that you're presented with, virtually every day. Awesome. When I graduate, can I be your lawyer? Do you have deep pockets?
Well, you're certainly right about needing a certain amount of distraction on familiar drives, I think the kind of distraction that happens when you're on a phone is a different kind of distraction, much more serious. But otherwise, yes, I need my tunes during the commute.
Ontario has a "careless driving" law that would cover such things as not looking at the road. Of course it's only really enforceable if a driver not looking at the road is distracted enough to make it obvious to other driver, or if that driver actually crashes.
The submission claims this is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"...huh? No.
The submission is wrong. The law only applies to hand-held electronics devices. If you use hands-free, you're fine. If your device is mounted to the dash, you're fine as long as you can use hands-free to control it. If you're using a GPS, program it before you leave, and you're fine.
This law has nothing to do with drinking coffee while driving, despite what the summary says. It's specifically targeted and hand-held electronics devices.
Everyone has a right to travel. No one has the right to endanger others.
I generally agree with your post, and normally I don't like picking nits, but, in Canada, mobility rights are enshrined in the Constitution.
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
There are some qualifications to those rights that allow provinces to make laws that require a person to be resident in a province before they can collect social support, and there's protection for affirmative action laws, but otherwise, a Canadian is free to go where she wishes.
As idiomatick stated below, with cell-phones the problem isn't so much holding the phone to your head, but the fact that you're having the conversation at all. You can be staring straight ahead while talking on the phone, but your attention is elsewhere -- with your caller, in fact -- and you're not actually paying attention to your driving any more. There are recent studies that support this.
The real story here isn't the law that was passed, but that the gov misinterpreted the studies. They probably should have banned cell calls -- whether hands free or not -- and left other hands-free devices alone.
I would agree with you, a workplace is a workplace, and smoking in a work vehicle exposes other employees to second hand smoke. But the GP (whether he knows it or not) is probably talking about a specific man who made the news here not too long ago. That man was the owner of the company, and the sole worker of that company. There were no other employees to be exposed to his second hand smoke. It's an interesting question whether he should be allowed to smoke in his company vehicle under those circumstances, and I hope he's fighting his fine. I also hope he wins. As an ex-smoker (usually the most sensitive kind of non-smoker), I think the government is going too far in regulating where and when people can smoke. It's getting out of hand, and while the gov continues to collect tax revenue from tobacco sales, it's hypocritical.
Just to offer a contrapositive example, I'm 35, and I don't consider myself to be a very good driver. Decent, I haven't had any accidents, but I went a good 6 or 8 years without driving at all, and those years of experience make a difference. Age doesn't make a difference, but experience does.
Of course, I'm now driving 1000 km/week, so I think I'm catching up fast...
Ah, no. The section added to the law (s. 78.1, Highway Traffic Act) does not include getting into an accident while eating an egg McMuffin, and I can't really see how they could shoe-horn that one in without going to a lot of trouble.
Of course, they don't need to. If you cause an accident while eating your breakfast, you can be charged with careless driving, and instead of the $1k fine and points, you can go to jail, have your license revoked, and pay a (much bigger) fine.
I posted the text of s. 78.1 here if you're interested.
Here's the text out of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.8:
78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.
Entertainment devices (2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.
Hands-free mode allowed (3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.
Exceptions (4) Subsection (1) does not apply to, (a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle; (b) any other prescribed person or class of persons; (c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or (d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.
Same (5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.
Same (6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway. 2. The motor vehicle is not in motion. 3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.
As for this being a show to garner votes, let me ask you something; isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? The majority of people want something, so the government gives it to them, and then maybe gets re-elected? Just askin'.
Now that said, I think the real impetus behind this law was that a few research studies came out that seem to show that talking on your cell phone while driving is rather more dangerous than talking to a passenger, and that other similar activities also carry increased risk. Of course, it looks like the government misinterpreted the studies, as some of the evidence would suggest that it's talking to a person not in the car, as opposed to using your hands on the cell phone, that leads to the increased danger (or at least contributes significantly to it). Given the current levels of scientific illiteracy in North America, this is hardly surprising.
You can still have your fair hearing and due process if you get a traffic ticket, at least in Ontario. It's not a summary judgment. The difference between the hands-free law, and the Careless law, is that the Careless law has jail time and a license suspension as the maximum penalty, where the hands-free law is probably a fine and maybe some demerit points.
Ontario has such a law, "careless driving", but the penalties are pretty stiff (jail time is a possibility), and it's possible that the courts have decided that just driving down the road talking on your cell phone doesn't rise to the level of "careless driving". If a driver were weaving from lane to lane, or presenting some other obvious danger, while using an electronic device, then I would guess the cop would charge with Careless.
This law captures all use of handheld electronic devices without handsfree technology, whether the driver is obviously a danger to others or not (and probably has a lower maximum penalty).
Oh, and just by-the-by (not an issue with you or your post), I read the statute (Highway Traffic Act, s. 78.1 and follows) and contrary to the summary, this couldn't be used to bust people for tuning their radio or using the windshield wipers.
Slashdot Mirror
Your sentence was pretty simple...I'm not sure what you think the "context" is.
How would you know you have them with an anti-virus installed? Last I heard, AV software wasn't %100 effective. Close, maybe, but not %100.
I'd love to know what the infection rates are for people like GP above, vs people who use AV software.
You don't have a right to impose hidden conditions when you sell a product. Nothing beyond what the law states.
Apple is open about the conditions, as open as they have to be under the law. I wish it weren't so, but there's nothing unusual about Apple's EULAs, however repugnant the practise may seem.
This solution is simple. Force customers to sign a contract at POS. You already do it whenever you buy things with a credit card. The customer must be provided a paper copy of the contract they signed.
That's fucking brilliant. And you can walk around with your lawyer, all day every day, to advise you whether to sign all those contracts that you're presented with, virtually every day. Awesome. When I graduate, can I be your lawyer? Do you have deep pockets?
Contracts of adhesion are completely legal and make up a large chunk (maybe a majority) of the contracts any of us makes on a daily basis.
Even your badly contrived monitor example fails if your software requires a certain quality level of monitor to function properly.
No. You can be charged with careless driving (and go to jail!) or you can be charged under the sections relating to dvd and movie players.
True. I was picking a nit, not actually debating the substance of the original post.
What happens when you can't buy gas engine cars anymore? What happens when hybrids (and then electrics) are all that's available? The time is coming.
Well, you're certainly right about needing a certain amount of distraction on familiar drives, I think the kind of distraction that happens when you're on a phone is a different kind of distraction, much more serious. But otherwise, yes, I need my tunes during the commute.
thank goodness for automatic transmissions then.
The summary is wrong, the law (probably, nothing is certain in the law) can't be enforced to get people for changing the controls on your dashboard.
Ontario has a "careless driving" law that would cover such things as not looking at the road. Of course it's only really enforceable if a driver not looking at the road is distracted enough to make it obvious to other driver, or if that driver actually crashes.
The submission claims this is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"...huh? No.
The submission is wrong. The law only applies to hand-held electronics devices. If you use hands-free, you're fine. If your device is mounted to the dash, you're fine as long as you can use hands-free to control it. If you're using a GPS, program it before you leave, and you're fine.
This law has nothing to do with drinking coffee while driving, despite what the summary says. It's specifically targeted and hand-held electronics devices.
I can operate my built in audio system by touch alone, but can't do the same with my iPod.
Everyone has a right to travel. No one has the right to endanger others.
I generally agree with your post, and normally I don't like picking nits, but, in Canada, mobility rights are enshrined in the Constitution.
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
There are some qualifications to those rights that allow provinces to make laws that require a person to be resident in a province before they can collect social support, and there's protection for affirmative action laws, but otherwise, a Canadian is free to go where she wishes.
As idiomatick stated below, with cell-phones the problem isn't so much holding the phone to your head, but the fact that you're having the conversation at all. You can be staring straight ahead while talking on the phone, but your attention is elsewhere -- with your caller, in fact -- and you're not actually paying attention to your driving any more. There are recent studies that support this.
The real story here isn't the law that was passed, but that the gov misinterpreted the studies. They probably should have banned cell calls -- whether hands free or not -- and left other hands-free devices alone.
I would agree with you, a workplace is a workplace, and smoking in a work vehicle exposes other employees to second hand smoke. But the GP (whether he knows it or not) is probably talking about a specific man who made the news here not too long ago. That man was the owner of the company, and the sole worker of that company. There were no other employees to be exposed to his second hand smoke. It's an interesting question whether he should be allowed to smoke in his company vehicle under those circumstances, and I hope he's fighting his fine. I also hope he wins. As an ex-smoker (usually the most sensitive kind of non-smoker), I think the government is going too far in regulating where and when people can smoke. It's getting out of hand, and while the gov continues to collect tax revenue from tobacco sales, it's hypocritical.
Just to offer a contrapositive example, I'm 35, and I don't consider myself to be a very good driver. Decent, I haven't had any accidents, but I went a good 6 or 8 years without driving at all, and those years of experience make a difference. Age doesn't make a difference, but experience does.
Of course, I'm now driving 1000 km/week, so I think I'm catching up fast...
Ah, no. The section added to the law (s. 78.1, Highway Traffic Act) does not include getting into an accident while eating an egg McMuffin, and I can't really see how they could shoe-horn that one in without going to a lot of trouble.
Of course, they don't need to. If you cause an accident while eating your breakfast, you can be charged with careless driving, and instead of the $1k fine and points, you can go to jail, have your license revoked, and pay a (much bigger) fine.
I posted the text of s. 78.1 here if you're interested.
Here's the text out of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.8:
78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.
Entertainment devices
(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.
Hands-free mode allowed
(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.
Exceptions
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to,
(a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;
(b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;
(c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or
(d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.
Same
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.
Same
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.
2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.
3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.
As for this being a show to garner votes, let me ask you something; isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? The majority of people want something, so the government gives it to them, and then maybe gets re-elected? Just askin'.
Now that said, I think the real impetus behind this law was that a few research studies came out that seem to show that talking on your cell phone while driving is rather more dangerous than talking to a passenger, and that other similar activities also carry increased risk. Of course, it looks like the government misinterpreted the studies, as some of the evidence would suggest that it's talking to a person not in the car, as opposed to using your hands on the cell phone, that leads to the increased danger (or at least contributes significantly to it). Given the current levels of scientific illiteracy in North America, this is hardly surprising.
You can still have your fair hearing and due process if you get a traffic ticket, at least in Ontario. It's not a summary judgment. The difference between the hands-free law, and the Careless law, is that the Careless law has jail time and a license suspension as the maximum penalty, where the hands-free law is probably a fine and maybe some demerit points.
Ontario has such a law, "careless driving", but the penalties are pretty stiff (jail time is a possibility), and it's possible that the courts have decided that just driving down the road talking on your cell phone doesn't rise to the level of "careless driving". If a driver were weaving from lane to lane, or presenting some other obvious danger, while using an electronic device, then I would guess the cop would charge with Careless.
This law captures all use of handheld electronic devices without handsfree technology, whether the driver is obviously a danger to others or not (and probably has a lower maximum penalty).
Oh, and just by-the-by (not an issue with you or your post), I read the statute (Highway Traffic Act, s. 78.1 and follows) and contrary to the summary, this couldn't be used to bust people for tuning their radio or using the windshield wipers.
Well, why shouldn't we?
flame-retardant underpants/
I think you under-estimate how easy it is to train dogs.