Please don't take an AC posting labeling him/her/itself as a "libertarian" as really being from a libertarian. The person ranting in that posting has little clue.
The claim that billions of dollars were lost out of the economy is pretty weak. No money was burnt up. Whatever money wasn't spent on an airline flight is either still in the hands of the people or was spent on alternative modes of transportation. The *airlines* didn't take in as much money, but the airlines can hardly be said to be the bulk of the economic system. The claim is almost as bad as the US claims that the real estate bubble being burst caused massive drops in people's net worth. That claim would only have been true if the previous increase in people's net worth due to the real estate market values had any substance behind them (which they didn't).
For the record, I classify myself as a fairly conservative independent, with sympathies towards libertarians. Whatever that means. But commercial ventures without some form of limiting controls are just as bad as governments without some form of limiting controls. They both become extremely powerful and can then operate without impunity.
Governments determine the parameters under which airlines are allowed to fly. The safety of commercial carrier's is the governments business as embodied in current law, put in place by the elected representatives of the people (in the USA, anyway).
Smithsonian "Air and Space" magazine has an interesting bit on flight planning and safety. Over the years, as jet engines have proven to be extremely reliable, the distance a flight is allowed to be from an airport (to which it could divert in case of trouble) has grown from something like 60 minutes to 120 minutes and now (I think) something like 180 minutes. This is true even though a fair number of commercial airline planes have only two engines. If I think about this in context of the recent volcanic eruption flight ban, I think:
Commercial airlines like fewer engines per plane because it keeps operating costs down. Commercial airlines like being able to fly up to 180 minutes from an airport because the more direct a flight can be made, the lower the operating costs. Commercial airlines have enjoyed the benefits of these economies. Now an event has come along that directly impacts the rationales that have made those economies possible, and a temporary flight ban was enacted accordingly to ensure public safety.
This is exactly the low-probability, high-impact kind of event that humans are bad at handling (in this case I'm talking about the flight ban, not the chance of a plane crashing due to ingesting volcanic emissions). I think the airlines need to update their risk models to include this type of event, develop contingency plans to prevent it from being as economically catastrophic as they claim that it has been, and get on with their lives.
If the airlines "deserve" to be compensated for this action, what about all of the passengers who spent large sums of money on hotels, alternative travel, etc. Wouldn't they deserve to be compensated as well? What about the businesses who didn't get revenue from bookings they had made because the people never showed up? Don't they deserve to be compensated? Where would it end?
Unless there is hard data, evidence that the ban was enacted despite good knowledge that it was unnecessary, I don't think there is a cause for reimbursement of anyone. If anything qualifies as an "act of god," this would be one.
This is, of course, only my opinion based on the evidence I have at this point in time.
I like the dollar coins for a few reasons. W.R.T. cell phones and ipods, it doesn't matter whether they are dollar coins or other change, they will scratch devices in your pocket. So I don't put those devices in the same pocket as any change I might have. As for why I like dollar coins:
First, the parking lot where I often park takes credit cards or coins. Since I don't like to pay for $4 parking with a credit card, I use coins. Dollar coins are just four quick drops, instead of 16 quarters.
Second, they are great for kids because they have mass and sink into their pockets. Dollar bills get crumpled up and can fall out when other things are removed. My son lost a $5 that way last week.
Third, for small amounts of change its useful to have one or two around. I don't carry $10 in dollar coins, but I do usually have one or two in my pocket. It is harder to lose a dollar coin than a dollar bill. I can put them in the coin holder in my car.
Four, they are useful for teaching kids about the presidents of the US, as the current run of dollar coins are going through all the presidents starting with G. Washington.
Anyone who thinks that US dollar coins are a great idea can certainly aid in the effort to spread them around. The next time you want some $$, go into the bank (instead of hitting the ATM) and ask for dollar coins. Then spend them wherever you go. I know of what I speak; I've been getting about $125 worth of dollar coins from the bank every month for about 3 years. I use them everywhere. I give them to my kids for allowances and school lunch/milk money. I use them at toll plazas. I use them at convenience stores.
Use a little personal initiative and support the things that you believe in, and you will find that all kinds of change (no pun intended) are possible.
So you propose that the United States should move more quickly on major changes to health, financial, and economic systems? That when making $1T changes 14 months of debate is too long?
Me, I'm happy that big changes take some debate. I'm not always happy with the outcome, but I welcome the debate.
I use $100 bills all the time when I make cash purchases for expensive items or when settling large debt obligations. Carrying enough $20s is a real pain. I don't try to buy a can of soda at a convenience store with a $100 bill, however. That would be stupid.
The ever increasing use of the US Constitution's Commerce clause to justify the federal government taking on more and more powers is a disingenuous ploy that will eventually (when taken to its logical conclusion) produce a result that makes a mockery of the Constitution. The federal government is granted a limited set of powers by the Constitution. The Commerce clause was not intended to be the "sudo" for the federal government. At some point the system administrators/system owners are going to have to step in and slap the fingers of the power users who are abusing it.
The fundamental theory of Chiropractic is quackery. The fact that the process of applying the theory is sometimes theraputic is not a good enough reason to excuse the basis for the practice. I believe that in some cases, where Dr.s of Chiropractic have repeatedly "manipulated" folks in an attempt to cure illness, people have become seriously injured or died. I wouldn't trust the scientific objectivity of nutritional advice from someone who believes in Chiropractic theory.
Perhaps you should try understanding the problem domain a bit before criticizing. Pilot workload in the cockpit is amazing on regular planes under certain circumstances when it seems like the environment desires nothing more than the total destruction of your plane and your personal death. Pilot workload in a fighter aircraft is ramped up a bit because it involves much of what the regular plane does, with the added tasks of flying non-standard courses and attitudes, while being responsible for death-dealing weapons, while sometimes being in situations where people are trying to kill you in addition to the environment. Many people can't even talk on a cell phone without it altering their ability to maintain situational awareness in a car with just a 2D control set.
Its not so much ignoring a message as needing as many message channels available as possible (audio provides an additional channel with visual and tactile being used as well) with priority messages getting the most effective channel - the "Kitchen Voice" (apologies to National Lampoon's Doon).
Perhaps Tivo is just suffering the effects of a limited market, not any of the other external factors mentioned. I know that I don't have a Tivo because I figure that if I don't have time to watch something when its actually being broadcast, I won't have time to watch it later.
Now, since I also believe that the future of A/V media is all on-demand streaming/downloading, people who know me might think that I haven't thought things through. And maybe I haven't. When everything is on-demand, there won't be any "broadcast schedule." Which would be pretty cool; I could just watch things when I want, without having to a) buy a Tivo, then b) pay for the TV Guide subscription, then c) configure it. But would I actually watch *anything* then? Probably not. Because if its available that freely, and I don't have to do *anything* (not even schedule my own time) to view it, then I probably won't value it very much. And why waste me time watching something I don't value.
So maybe everything won't go to "on-demand." Because if they did, and we all lost the shared experience of viewing a broadcast at the same time, perhaps we would all watch a lot less media. And then how would advertisers convince us to spend our money buying their stuff?
So maybe the difficulty that Tivo is having is just the early signs of the low value people place on watching media for which there is virtually no cost to them, and no value either. Hmmm.
A "Glock"? Please. That's an Austrian pistol. Every freedom loving American carries an M1911A1.
I live in the USA and I specifically chose a Glock over the standard design Colt.45 semi-auto. From a reasonable controls standpoint, the Glock has a much better set of operating controls that a) prevent unintentional operation while b) not impeding intentional operation (IMHO).
If you are reading this thinking that all firearms are the same, firing just when the trigger is pressed in a conscious decision to fire and then always firing, you might be intrigued to read up just what can go wrong with a firearm, and how variations in firearm operating controls function. Pay attention to the endless debates about what "condition" to carry in, and why people advocate various carry states (round chambered, round not chambered, "cocked and locked," de-cocked, etc.).
As an exercise for the reader, debate the pros and cons of "magazine safeties" under various threat conditions.
Perhaps that is exactly what is required - is is at least reasonable to debate the point rather than dismiss it outright.
Google offers a platform for publishing material. It is far different than a "common carrier" like the telephone company offering a communications system through which material is transmitted and received between individuals, or even an ISP (where multiple pairings are involved). It is, in fact, much more like a newspaper, with the difference that as it is currently run, no editor reviews the material appearing on the front page.
I can imagine a scenario under which material pertaining to me could be obtained illegally and published. If a newspaper were to publish it, I would certainly want to hold the editor of the newspaper responsible. In fact, the courts do find the editors of publications such as the National Inquirer (in the US, other publications elsewhere) responsible for publishing illegally obtained material regarding public figures such as movie stars.
Why is it so far-fetched to imagine holding the operators of an Internet-based publishing platform to a similar standard? Be careful in your responses, as I am not necessarily advocating holding them responsible; I am interested in understanding the reasoning under which it is considered ridiculous to do so.
I'm confused at where all the fuss over the security tracking capability is coming from? The way that the vice principal is quoted above sounds more like the school district found a picture either on the laptop or a network share, taken using the webcam on the laptop, than that the school district was monitoring the student themselves.
I think I was reading the article fairly objectively, and I didn't see any blatant one-sided reporting. The use of the term "cost" when applied to a piece of equipment is often used to express the initial capital expenditure required to aquire a piece of equipment. The term "total cost of ownership" (TCO) is the term often used to provide an overall lifetime cost. The way the term "cost" was used in the article was consistent with the ordinary use of the term.
For example, I installed a geothermal HVAC system in my house last year. When I talk about the "cost" of the system, I refer to how much money I paid the contractor who installed the system. Since the "cost" of the system was about twice that of a comparable non-geothermal system, I certainly expect the quality (i.e., performance and repair rate) of the system to be no more than that of a convential system. I think that was the only point being made about the "cost" of the electric ice resurfacers.
Total cost of ownership is a separate issue which often (unfortunately) seems to be a required part of the ROI analysis for "green" technologies. I think the issue with the electric ice resurfacers breaking down and not performing well bears close examination, because my personal experience with green technologies (i.e., my geothermal system) is that the payback analysis involved in the TCO is generally optimistic (i.e., you don't save as much as initially estimated), the initial acquisition costs are optimistic (i.e., it costs more than the initial estimates), failures with the "green" systems are more likely to occur, and correcting those failures is more expensive than with traditional technologies. As we gain more experience with green technologies this may change, but adopters should go into the experience with their eyes wide open or else we may see a negative backlash that hinders adoption rather than encourages it. In my case I made sure I had a 10 year parts and labor warranty on the entire system from a single provider (to avoid finger pointing) which has already helped me avoid $1000 in unexpected repair costs.
I was watching the Olympic coverage on TV and I saw the ice surface that was at issue. It was completely unacceptable for the competition at hand. Whether the fault lies with the capabilities of the electric resurfacers, with a random failure, or in some other area, I don't know but am interested in finding out.
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. There needs to be a distinction between "health insurance" and "health care." There need to be further distinctions between ordinary maintenance-level "health care" (annual check-ups, birth control pills, ordinary sicknesses that are treated with one or two doctor visits), extra-ordinary "health care" (significant devastating acute care problems like broken bones, hospitalizations for serious infections, treatable cancers), and extreme "health care" (untreatable/difficult to treat cancer, chronic debilitating diseases).
People need to realize that they need to pay, out of their own pockets, for maintenance-level and ordinary health care and that they should have "health insurance" to cover the unexpected costs of extra-ordinary health care.
A reasonable role for government would be to cover extreme "health care" expenses for the population as a whole, and to provide subsidies for maintenance-level healthcare and subsidies for "health insurance" to cover extra-ordinary "health care" for folks under a given income level.
By removing the insurance lottery from insurance companies and individuals with respect to extreme healthcare, and removing the cost pass-through to "insurance" for ordinary expenses, I suspect that a lot of the "health insurance" rules would become much easier to discuss and enact.
The reports I have seen all say observation shows that device usage is down while driving. What isn't clear is whether the people getting into crashes are using the devices. What can we do to get that data, as its the most important data to have? If a relatively high percentage of crashes involve people using said devices, then the law against device usage is good, but being ignored by that some people (probably those who are the worst at judging their level of impairment). If crash data shows little to no device involvement, then the law is probably not much good.
Empirically, I see a lot of people at least talking on cell phones with no ill effect. I also see a few talking (and sometimes texting) with a huge impediment to their driving [way under the speed limit/prevailing speeds driving in the center lane with people passing them on both sides, pulling out in front of people at right-turn-on-red stops, etc.].
Too bad there is not a fool-proof way to determine distractive device involvement in crashes, and levy a penalty on those in such crashes, similar to drunken driving crashes. All but the most hardcore idiots/supremely talented multi-tasking individuals might lay off the behavior, making things safer for the rest of us.
At the risk of being modded Offtopic (which I am), You are either trolling for grammer Nazis, or you misapprehended a phrase... I believe you meant to say "For all *intents* and *purposes*" in your signature line, not "For all intensive purposes..."
Those are two different values:
The value of keeping your data secret (hidden from everyone else) versus the value of keeping your data available to you for your own use. Data backups satisfy the latter, encryption the former. For many people, most of their data needs to be available, but not necessarily hidden.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't take an AC posting labeling him/her/itself as a "libertarian" as really being from a libertarian. The person ranting in that posting has little clue.
The claim that billions of dollars were lost out of the economy is pretty weak. No money was burnt up. Whatever money wasn't spent on an airline flight is either still in the hands of the people or was spent on alternative modes of transportation. The *airlines* didn't take in as much money, but the airlines can hardly be said to be the bulk of the economic system. The claim is almost as bad as the US claims that the real estate bubble being burst caused massive drops in people's net worth. That claim would only have been true if the previous increase in people's net worth due to the real estate market values had any substance behind them (which they didn't).
For the record, I classify myself as a fairly conservative independent, with sympathies towards libertarians. Whatever that means. But commercial ventures without some form of limiting controls are just as bad as governments without some form of limiting controls. They both become extremely powerful and can then operate without impunity.
Governments determine the parameters under which airlines are allowed to fly. The safety of commercial carrier's is the governments business as embodied in current law, put in place by the elected representatives of the people (in the USA, anyway).
Smithsonian "Air and Space" magazine has an interesting bit on flight planning and safety. Over the years, as jet engines have proven to be extremely reliable, the distance a flight is allowed to be from an airport (to which it could divert in case of trouble) has grown from something like 60 minutes to 120 minutes and now (I think) something like 180 minutes. This is true even though a fair number of commercial airline planes have only two engines. If I think about this in context of the recent volcanic eruption flight ban, I think:
Commercial airlines like fewer engines per plane because it keeps operating costs down. Commercial airlines like being able to fly up to 180 minutes from an airport because the more direct a flight can be made, the lower the operating costs. Commercial airlines have enjoyed the benefits of these economies. Now an event has come along that directly impacts the rationales that have made those economies possible, and a temporary flight ban was enacted accordingly to ensure public safety.
This is exactly the low-probability, high-impact kind of event that humans are bad at handling (in this case I'm talking about the flight ban, not the chance of a plane crashing due to ingesting volcanic emissions). I think the airlines need to update their risk models to include this type of event, develop contingency plans to prevent it from being as economically catastrophic as they claim that it has been, and get on with their lives.
If the airlines "deserve" to be compensated for this action, what about all of the passengers who spent large sums of money on hotels, alternative travel, etc. Wouldn't they deserve to be compensated as well? What about the businesses who didn't get revenue from bookings they had made because the people never showed up? Don't they deserve to be compensated? Where would it end?
Unless there is hard data, evidence that the ban was enacted despite good knowledge that it was unnecessary, I don't think there is a cause for reimbursement of anyone. If anything qualifies as an "act of god," this would be one.
This is, of course, only my opinion based on the evidence I have at this point in time.
I like the dollar coins for a few reasons. W.R.T. cell phones and ipods, it doesn't matter whether they are dollar coins or other change, they will scratch devices in your pocket. So I don't put those devices in the same pocket as any change I might have. As for why I like dollar coins:
First, the parking lot where I often park takes credit cards or coins. Since I don't like to pay for $4 parking with a credit card, I use coins. Dollar coins are just four quick drops, instead of 16 quarters.
Second, they are great for kids because they have mass and sink into their pockets. Dollar bills get crumpled up and can fall out when other things are removed. My son lost a $5 that way last week.
Third, for small amounts of change its useful to have one or two around. I don't carry $10 in dollar coins, but I do usually have one or two in my pocket. It is harder to lose a dollar coin than a dollar bill. I can put them in the coin holder in my car.
Four, they are useful for teaching kids about the presidents of the US, as the current run of dollar coins are going through all the presidents starting with G. Washington.
Anyone who thinks that US dollar coins are a great idea can certainly aid in the effort to spread them around. The next time you want some $$, go into the bank (instead of hitting the ATM) and ask for dollar coins. Then spend them wherever you go. I know of what I speak; I've been getting about $125 worth of dollar coins from the bank every month for about 3 years. I use them everywhere. I give them to my kids for allowances and school lunch/milk money. I use them at toll plazas. I use them at convenience stores.
Use a little personal initiative and support the things that you believe in, and you will find that all kinds of change (no pun intended) are possible.
So you propose that the United States should move more quickly on major changes to health, financial, and economic systems? That when making $1T changes 14 months of debate is too long?
Me, I'm happy that big changes take some debate. I'm not always happy with the outcome, but I welcome the debate.
I use $100 bills all the time when I make cash purchases for expensive items or when settling large debt obligations. Carrying enough $20s is a real pain. I don't try to buy a can of soda at a convenience store with a $100 bill, however. That would be stupid.
I think the time unit should be micro-fortnights. That will reduce the exponent. Its been done before.
I thought the parent post was in the ironic mode - doesn't anyone get jokes anymore?
Yea, what he (parent) said. In spades.
The ever increasing use of the US Constitution's Commerce clause to justify the federal government taking on more and more powers is a disingenuous ploy that will eventually (when taken to its logical conclusion) produce a result that makes a mockery of the Constitution. The federal government is granted a limited set of powers by the Constitution. The Commerce clause was not intended to be the "sudo" for the federal government. At some point the system administrators/system owners are going to have to step in and slap the fingers of the power users who are abusing it.
The fundamental theory of Chiropractic is quackery. The fact that the process of applying the theory is sometimes theraputic is not a good enough reason to excuse the basis for the practice. I believe that in some cases, where Dr.s of Chiropractic have repeatedly "manipulated" folks in an attempt to cure illness, people have become seriously injured or died. I wouldn't trust the scientific objectivity of nutritional advice from someone who believes in Chiropractic theory.
Cisco IOS: "show tech-support"
Perhaps you should try understanding the problem domain a bit before criticizing. Pilot workload in the cockpit is amazing on regular planes under certain circumstances when it seems like the environment desires nothing more than the total destruction of your plane and your personal death. Pilot workload in a fighter aircraft is ramped up a bit because it involves much of what the regular plane does, with the added tasks of flying non-standard courses and attitudes, while being responsible for death-dealing weapons, while sometimes being in situations where people are trying to kill you in addition to the environment. Many people can't even talk on a cell phone without it altering their ability to maintain situational awareness in a car with just a 2D control set.
Its not so much ignoring a message as needing as many message channels available as possible (audio provides an additional channel with visual and tactile being used as well) with priority messages getting the most effective channel - the "Kitchen Voice" (apologies to National Lampoon's Doon).
Perhaps Tivo is just suffering the effects of a limited market, not any of the other external factors mentioned. I know that I don't have a Tivo because I figure that if I don't have time to watch something when its actually being broadcast, I won't have time to watch it later.
Now, since I also believe that the future of A/V media is all on-demand streaming/downloading, people who know me might think that I haven't thought things through. And maybe I haven't. When everything is on-demand, there won't be any "broadcast schedule." Which would be pretty cool; I could just watch things when I want, without having to a) buy a Tivo, then b) pay for the TV Guide subscription, then c) configure it. But would I actually watch *anything* then? Probably not. Because if its available that freely, and I don't have to do *anything* (not even schedule my own time) to view it, then I probably won't value it very much. And why waste me time watching something I don't value.
So maybe everything won't go to "on-demand." Because if they did, and we all lost the shared experience of viewing a broadcast at the same time, perhaps we would all watch a lot less media. And then how would advertisers convince us to spend our money buying their stuff?
So maybe the difficulty that Tivo is having is just the early signs of the low value people place on watching media for which there is virtually no cost to them, and no value either. Hmmm.
> Pull out the concealed Glock...
A "Glock"? Please. That's an Austrian pistol. Every freedom loving American carries an M1911A1.
I live in the USA and I specifically chose a Glock over the standard design Colt .45 semi-auto. From a reasonable controls standpoint, the Glock has a much better set of operating controls that a) prevent unintentional operation while b) not impeding intentional operation (IMHO).
If you are reading this thinking that all firearms are the same, firing just when the trigger is pressed in a conscious decision to fire and then always firing, you might be intrigued to read up just what can go wrong with a firearm, and how variations in firearm operating controls function. Pay attention to the endless debates about what "condition" to carry in, and why people advocate various carry states (round chambered, round not chambered, "cocked and locked," de-cocked, etc.).
As an exercise for the reader, debate the pros and cons of "magazine safeties" under various threat conditions.
Perhaps that is exactly what is required - is is at least reasonable to debate the point rather than dismiss it outright.
Google offers a platform for publishing material. It is far different than a "common carrier" like the telephone company offering a communications system through which material is transmitted and received between individuals, or even an ISP (where multiple pairings are involved). It is, in fact, much more like a newspaper, with the difference that as it is currently run, no editor reviews the material appearing on the front page.
I can imagine a scenario under which material pertaining to me could be obtained illegally and published. If a newspaper were to publish it, I would certainly want to hold the editor of the newspaper responsible. In fact, the courts do find the editors of publications such as the National Inquirer (in the US, other publications elsewhere) responsible for publishing illegally obtained material regarding public figures such as movie stars.
Why is it so far-fetched to imagine holding the operators of an Internet-based publishing platform to a similar standard? Be careful in your responses, as I am not necessarily advocating holding them responsible; I am interested in understanding the reasoning under which it is considered ridiculous to do so.
Reasonable responses, anyone?
I'm confused at where all the fuss over the security tracking capability is coming from? The way that the vice principal is quoted above sounds more like the school district found a picture either on the laptop or a network share, taken using the webcam on the laptop, than that the school district was monitoring the student themselves.
I think I was reading the article fairly objectively, and I didn't see any blatant one-sided reporting. The use of the term "cost" when applied to a piece of equipment is often used to express the initial capital expenditure required to aquire a piece of equipment. The term "total cost of ownership" (TCO) is the term often used to provide an overall lifetime cost. The way the term "cost" was used in the article was consistent with the ordinary use of the term.
For example, I installed a geothermal HVAC system in my house last year. When I talk about the "cost" of the system, I refer to how much money I paid the contractor who installed the system. Since the "cost" of the system was about twice that of a comparable non-geothermal system, I certainly expect the quality (i.e., performance and repair rate) of the system to be no more than that of a convential system. I think that was the only point being made about the "cost" of the electric ice resurfacers.
Total cost of ownership is a separate issue which often (unfortunately) seems to be a required part of the ROI analysis for "green" technologies. I think the issue with the electric ice resurfacers breaking down and not performing well bears close examination, because my personal experience with green technologies (i.e., my geothermal system) is that the payback analysis involved in the TCO is generally optimistic (i.e., you don't save as much as initially estimated), the initial acquisition costs are optimistic (i.e., it costs more than the initial estimates), failures with the "green" systems are more likely to occur, and correcting those failures is more expensive than with traditional technologies. As we gain more experience with green technologies this may change, but adopters should go into the experience with their eyes wide open or else we may see a negative backlash that hinders adoption rather than encourages it. In my case I made sure I had a 10 year parts and labor warranty on the entire system from a single provider (to avoid finger pointing) which has already helped me avoid $1000 in unexpected repair costs.
I was watching the Olympic coverage on TV and I saw the ice surface that was at issue. It was completely unacceptable for the competition at hand. Whether the fault lies with the capabilities of the electric resurfacers, with a random failure, or in some other area, I don't know but am interested in finding out.
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. There needs to be a distinction between "health insurance" and "health care." There need to be further distinctions between ordinary maintenance-level "health care" (annual check-ups, birth control pills, ordinary sicknesses that are treated with one or two doctor visits), extra-ordinary "health care" (significant devastating acute care problems like broken bones, hospitalizations for serious infections, treatable cancers), and extreme "health care" (untreatable/difficult to treat cancer, chronic debilitating diseases).
People need to realize that they need to pay, out of their own pockets, for maintenance-level and ordinary health care and that they should have "health insurance" to cover the unexpected costs of extra-ordinary health care.
A reasonable role for government would be to cover extreme "health care" expenses for the population as a whole, and to provide subsidies for maintenance-level healthcare and subsidies for "health insurance" to cover extra-ordinary "health care" for folks under a given income level.
By removing the insurance lottery from insurance companies and individuals with respect to extreme healthcare, and removing the cost pass-through to "insurance" for ordinary expenses, I suspect that a lot of the "health insurance" rules would become much easier to discuss and enact.
I don't know who modded this insightful, but I think sarcastically funny would be a better call.
The reports I have seen all say observation shows that device usage is down while driving. What isn't clear is whether the people getting into crashes are using the devices. What can we do to get that data, as its the most important data to have? If a relatively high percentage of crashes involve people using said devices, then the law against device usage is good, but being ignored by that some people (probably those who are the worst at judging their level of impairment). If crash data shows little to no device involvement, then the law is probably not much good.
Empirically, I see a lot of people at least talking on cell phones with no ill effect. I also see a few talking (and sometimes texting) with a huge impediment to their driving [way under the speed limit/prevailing speeds driving in the center lane with people passing them on both sides, pulling out in front of people at right-turn-on-red stops, etc.].
Too bad there is not a fool-proof way to determine distractive device involvement in crashes, and levy a penalty on those in such crashes, similar to drunken driving crashes. All but the most hardcore idiots/supremely talented multi-tasking individuals might lay off the behavior, making things safer for the rest of us.
At the risk of being modded Offtopic (which I am), You are either trolling for grammer Nazis, or you misapprehended a phrase... I believe you meant to say "For all *intents* and *purposes*" in your signature line, not "For all intensive purposes..."
Those are two different values: The value of keeping your data secret (hidden from everyone else) versus the value of keeping your data available to you for your own use. Data backups satisfy the latter, encryption the former. For many people, most of their data needs to be available, but not necessarily hidden.
We can say "Bada bing, bada bang, bada *boom*"