It's a good thing that there's no way to advertise a porn site with obvious keywords like Porn or Sex. In Britain, users should only be able to see safe sites featuring things like tasty Cream Pies and beautiful Pearl Necklaces and innocent Rimming sites to teach kids how to enjoy decorative rims. It's easy to filter out the bad stuff by looking for the obvious bad words.
Taco has demonstrated that he will sell out for the right price. After that it's only a matter of time before you start seeing featured ads in your news feed.
Taco supposedly personally made between $40-50 million from slashdot. I'm not sure he even needs to work anymore. He is probably just doing it for fun now.
Really? IIRC, Slashdot sold for $1.5M with a few million in additional cash and stock over the next few years.
If they are really worried about piracy, they need to keep teens apart -- one of my teenaged relatives has a half dozen or so usb drives laying around with songs he's traded with various friends -- She's got a music library of over 10,000 songs (though oddly, she only seems to listen to 10 of those, over and over again). They trade entire music libraries at school, thousands of songs at a time. So no matter how tightly they lock down the internet, music will continue to be traded.
I'm a lost cause, the mainstream industry isn't likely to get much of my money no matter what they do. I'm well out of my teen years, and about the only albums I buy are for small regional artists, and I usually get them at concerts or direct from the artists. I already own several hundred CD's from the groups I listened to in my teens and 20's, and rarely hear a mainstream group I want to buy a CD from today -- Pandora and Spotify are good enough.
As long as the hardware isn't too expensive it's often already in the car. Cruise control and steering wheel controls are in the car -- they just need to pop the plate or put on a deluxe stalk. These "heater elements put into all seats" would simply be another cost savings measure vs. manufacturing efficiency.
I can't imagine renting, so to speak, butt heaters only during winter could possibly be cheaper. It soulds more like a mathematical cover story for a quasi-loan where they simply charge poorer people a lot more over the long run because they can't afford the option up front.
Renting a seat heater only when you really need it won't be cheaper than having it there all the time. Few in Florida are going to rent seat heaters, so those people in Michigan that really want them are going to pay more since their rental fee is also paying for the unused heaters installed in cars in Florida.
Consumers will buy another brand without these annoyances
Right, just like how consumers can switch to a different ISP when they don't like the terms from their current ISP. There's really only a handful of car manufacturers, and if one finds a way to earn more revenue, they'll all follow.
You can easily see that this object could have been tossed by the wheels when you see the size comparison to the wheels.
All I can see in that picture is a shadow of and armless Johnny Five from Short Circuit. How did he get on Mars, what happened to his arms, and why is he screwing with Opportunity?
Isn't this type of thing exactly why modern operating systems have multiple users? You install as much software for your user as you want to, and when your wife logs on with her user account to do music editing or whatever, she doesn't see any of your development tools at all.
I run a LAMP environment + PostgreSQL + Java (Eclipse, Tomcat, Android JDK, etc) on a 6 year old desktop computer with 5GB of RAM and it runs just fine - sure, there are several backup services running (databases, tomcat, webservers), but they run in the background and don't keep me from getting work done.
When my wife and I were sharing the same desktop computer, I ran a second X server, so she could hit a hotkey to switch over to her desktop without affecting anything on my desktop. Now she uses a Tablet for everything she used to do on the desktop, so I'm the only user.
If we want the death penalty to be a deterrent against crime
The technical name for this kind of argument is ex falso quodlibet. You start with a premise that is false, and from there you can infer anything, and it will be at least as true as your original axiom. It has been shown by numerous studies that the death penalty does not provide a deterrent, because few people who commit the kind of crime where it is applicable expect to be caught and rationally weighs the options (and the ones that do don't care what happens to them).
Oh you mean like what I said in my second paragraph?
My principle reason for wanting a painless and relatively low stress execution method is that we have an imperfect justice system. Which means we periodically commit murder in the name of executing criminals. Other than some sense of vindication we as a society gain very little from a condemned persons suffering. So in the event of an innocent person being put to death I would at the least hope that there last few minutes of life are not spent in agonizing pain.
So far as deterance goes I don't think that it really works very well because that only works when people make logical decisions about what they are doing. When murder is involved there is rarely much sound reasoning happening. Additionally I think it makes more sense for such a criminal to meet a quiet ignominous end.
I'm not sure that executing innocent people more humanely is morally superior than executing them painfully - if we have to kill people carefully because they might be innocent, maybe we shouldn't be killing them at all. A few minutes of pain as we kill them hardly seems worse than the fact that we are killing them in the first place.
If we want the death penalty to be a deterrent against crime, potential criminals should have to face a death that's scary, and not expect a painless injection that lets them quietly pass away.
Though I question the value of any death penalty as a deterrent since it's so rarely applied and the criminal either thinks he's going to get away with it or isn't worried about the consequences no matter what the consequences are -- 5 years in prison and then death might be even more attractive to some than a lifetime in prison.
Even if a movie was playing on the device, it doesnt prove it caused the crash. Thats the whole point, you not only have to prove that the device was playing something distracting but that I was looking at it AND it was the main source of distractions. Your argument is basically, "thats messy, lets just blanket everything in law, instead of respecting Liberty." Disclaimer: I have no desire to watch movies in my car, BUT I DO want to be able to add displays and work on HUDs without worrying about knee-jerk law.
Yes, since studies have proven that distracted driving causes crashes, anything that provides unnecessary distractions from driving is banned. It's nearly impossible to prove that someone was distracted at the moment of a crash, even in-car video wouldn't prove that definitively, so instead the law attacks the source of the problem -- by banning distracting devices. Some drivers may not be distracted by a movie playing in the center console that a passenger is watching, but enough drivers are distracted by such things that they are prohibited by law.
The vehicle code isn't there to make your driving experience pleasant and to provide you with entertainment options - it's there to create safe conditions for you *and* for other drivers.
However, why do you keep saying that the law is preventing you from creating displays and HUDs when the law specifically allows vehicle information displays? All you have to do to make it legal is make sure it only displays vehicle information while driving. Plenty of amateur racers have extra displays and/or gauges to display turbo boost, G forces, and a wide range of other data in their street cars. If you want to create a HUD that shows non-vehicle information, then that's banned, and banned for good reason.
It's possible that you'll run into problems from the police with any sort of wearable device like Google Glass that might obstruct your vision, but if you can demonstrate that it shows that it's interlocked to only show relevant vehicle information while driving and cannot show entertainment information, then it shouldn't be a problem since under the current law, that would be legal. (though I expect the law to be updated to cover wearable devices before too long).
It SERIOUSLY infringes Liberty for Safety using undefined fear. There is NOTHING dangerous about having a non-interlocked display, its the USE that can possibly be dangerous. If i get in an accident and you can prove i was watching a movie, by all means throw the book at me. But the law, as written is overly broad and needs serious review to address its Liberty shortcomings.
Therein lies the problem -- if you're watching a movie and get into an accident, you're going to claim "But I was just using my tablet as a GPS" and it would be difficult to prove otherwise. While if the car physically interlocks the display to prevent it from displaying a movie while driving, then there's no question.
The law is terrible, stop trying to make things fit into it.
You keep saying that, but what is so terrible about it? It seems like one of the more reasonable laws that covers most devices and allows reasonable exceptions.
Unless you're arguing that displaying entertainment or business apps to drivers is a good thing? You may want to get a tweet while driving, and it might be safer to display it on a Google Glass display than to make you pick up your phone to read it, but that doesn't mean that it's safe for you to read it at all.
Why? Can you articulate an answer that can avoid the CCTV argument? (CCTV is everywhere you are likely to encounter a google glass wearer, so whats the difference?)
I've yet to see a CCTV in a public restroom, or at a private party in someones home (they may have a camera over the driveway, but they aren't scanning anyone's face with them). However, I've seen GG in both places.
I think any lawyer worth $0.02 would get that argument thrown out in court. The law does not stipulate that the device must ONLY be capable of those things.
Does that have the force of law? I can't find anything in the California Code (http://www.ca.gov/about/government/state/lawsandregs.html) that looks like it establishes any laws or authorizes any any agencies to create regulations regarding the operation of a motor vehicle.
There's a section under motor vehicles for computer crime, though, for some reason - Title 13, Division 2, section 12. Interestingly, the CCR page is the second application I've ever seen that uses silverlight.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you looking for some loophole that says that the California Vehicle Code is not the law, or do you not understand that the CVC *is* the law?
Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
No, it doesn't: it IS CAPABLE OF displaying a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications".
Right, and that's why its not allowed while driving -- it has no known interlock preventing it from displaying such video while driving, therefore, it's not allowed to be used while driving - not even if you put it into "GPS mode" and promise not to use it to check texts - without an interlock you're not allowed to use Google Glass while driving.
There are still jobs out there for power engineers - I have a friend that works at a construction engineering firm and they have trouble finding qualified and experienced electrical engineers to fill some positions.
I'd imagine that a lot of electronics design work has been outsourced to the same companies that are building the electronics, and probably a lot of the tricky electrical design work has been replaced by digital electronics. Using a 16Mhz microcontroller might be overkill to read at a few analog inputs to generate some outputs, but your offshore manufacturer can likely use an off-the-shelf design to implement it for less than the cost of using discrete chips.
What about the DVD driving lock? Can be easily tampered so it's up to the user to respect the law... why should a mobile phone be different?
Feel free to explain that to the judge "Your honor, I admit that I was using my phone as as GPS while driving, which is a clear violation of the law against cell phone use while driving, but since the interlock on in-car DVD players are easily (and illegally) tampered with, I obviously should not have gotten that ticket. Hey, I'm defending our future here, and who wants a future where drivers can't use their phones while driving!?"
Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
Unless it was being used as a "vehicle information display", right? I mean, just like the magic of 'on a computer' turns mathematics into an invention, the display of information transforms a device into a "vehicle information display". The reason this must be true is because you can not find me a GPS that I can not hack and put Tetris on, or a digital speedometer I can not hack to be a stock ticker. So, the information displayed must transform the device.
Yes, the information currently provided on the display transforms the display, no magic needed - if it's showing a GPS display, it's a GPS, if it's showing a Justin Bieber video, it's an entertainment device. Some cars have large GPS displays that can show entertainment videos while the car is in park -- when it's used in GPS mode, the law considers it a GPS, and since the interlock prevents it from being used for entertainment while driving, it's perfectly legal.
Due to the fact that (A) I can bypass the interlock,
If you can easily bypass the interlock, like with a dash mounted switch, then its not really an interlock.
But if you do modify your car or the device to bypass the interlock, then it's no longer "interlocked", so you're in violation of the law if you use it while driving. If a cop sees you watching TV while driving, he's going to know that you bypassed the interlock. Perhaps more importantly, if you get into an accident and investigation shows that you've intentionally disabled the interlock or had a non-interlocked entertainment device present, then you'll likely face additional liability or criminal charges.
and that no one on this planet can (B) design anything in any way as to "prevent the driver" (me) from operating it however I please, or even determine that my operation and viewing thereof is NOT in a "safe and reasonable manner",
That's why the law exists -- to keep everyone on the planet from developing entertainment devices that you can use while driving. The law apparently considers any "entertainment" or "business application" to be distracting, regardless of your own beliefs about what you think you can do in a "safe and reasonable manner" - your opinion doesn't matter, the law has already decided it for you. You may not like it and you may not agree, but you'll still get a ticket if caught watching TV while driving.
and beyond these: The fact that all raster displays are video signals, including some in-dash information displays (speedometers, odometers, fuel, etc), Section A and B are so unenforcable that they do in-fact hinder the future development of automotive technology. I don't know about you, but I'd love to be able to (slowly) drive in a dense fog, or blizzard using a computer generated "video feed" of EXTERNAL information (as distinguished from vehicle information) on my HUD.
If a "video feed" is being used as a vehicle information display, then it's allowed, the only video that's not allowed is entertainment or a business application, so I'm not sure which part of the law you feel is unenforceable. Some cars already have night vision cameras with a driver viewable display and it seems like this would be allowed under section 4 A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
What if you say that you the glass is your GPS, has an android "driving lock" that disables its use for anything else?
Not that I defend glassholes , but enjoy finding workarounds to the law.
I think you'd have to convince a judge that the "driving lock" was active and there's no way to bypass it. People have unsuccessfully tried to argue that using their phone as a GPS doesn't violate the law against using cell phones while driving, so the "driving lock" would probably have to be a built-in Android feature that the user can't disable (though rooting your phone may cloud the issue)
[Of course, there is an argument to be made that the cop who wrote the ticket very likely had a dash mounted laptop which violates the law in question.]
I didn't post the entire CVC section since I didn't think the rest pertained to the case in question, but there's an exception for police and other "authorized emergency vehicles":
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
So most GPS systems are illegal, as most are not "installed", and a dash-mounted tablet used exclusively for GPS is illegal, as it doesn't have an interlock device.
Most GPS systems are "installed" so far as they are clipped into a holder, as people tend to remove them often to prevent theft.
I don't know the legal definition of "installed", so I don't know if a GPS suction cupped to the window or to a dash mount is "installed" or not. There is a separate CVC section that covers where a GPS can be mounted.
But it's true that using a phone or tablet as a GPS can get you into trouble - cell phone tickets have been issued to people while using their cell phone only as a GPS device, if it's not a dedicated GPS unit, then it's not a GPS.
It's irrelevant that there is "no evidence" Glass was being used while driving. The fact of the matter is Abadie was wearing Glass while driving and California law prohibits driving even with a computer sitting closed on the front passenger seat or anywhere in the front of the car.
Have a citation for that? The CVC section banning TV's bans only *operating* displays, not displays that are turned or not visible to the driver.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good thing that there's no way to advertise a porn site with obvious keywords like Porn or Sex. In Britain, users should only be able to see safe sites featuring things like tasty Cream Pies and beautiful Pearl Necklaces and innocent Rimming sites to teach kids how to enjoy decorative rims. It's easy to filter out the bad stuff by looking for the obvious bad words.
Taco has demonstrated that he will sell out for the right price. After that it's only a matter of time before you start seeing featured ads in your news feed.
Taco supposedly personally made between $40-50 million from slashdot. I'm not sure he even needs to work anymore. He is probably just doing it for fun now.
Really? IIRC, Slashdot sold for $1.5M with a few million in additional cash and stock over the next few years.
http://www.salon.com/1999/09/1...
Did Andover do so well that he eventually earned 10X+ the selling price of the site?
If they are really worried about piracy, they need to keep teens apart -- one of my teenaged relatives has a half dozen or so usb drives laying around with songs he's traded with various friends -- She's got a music library of over 10,000 songs (though oddly, she only seems to listen to 10 of those, over and over again). They trade entire music libraries at school, thousands of songs at a time. So no matter how tightly they lock down the internet, music will continue to be traded.
I'm a lost cause, the mainstream industry isn't likely to get much of my money no matter what they do. I'm well out of my teen years, and about the only albums I buy are for small regional artists, and I usually get them at concerts or direct from the artists. I already own several hundred CD's from the groups I listened to in my teens and 20's, and rarely hear a mainstream group I want to buy a CD from today -- Pandora and Spotify are good enough.
As long as the hardware isn't too expensive it's often already in the car. Cruise control and steering wheel controls are in the car -- they just need to pop the plate or put on a deluxe stalk. These "heater elements put into all seats" would simply be another cost savings measure vs. manufacturing efficiency.
I can't imagine renting, so to speak, butt heaters only during winter could possibly be cheaper. It soulds more like a mathematical cover story for a quasi-loan where they simply charge poorer people a lot more over the long run because they can't afford the option up front.
Renting a seat heater only when you really need it won't be cheaper than having it there all the time. Few in Florida are going to rent seat heaters, so those people in Michigan that really want them are going to pay more since their rental fee is also paying for the unused heaters installed in cars in Florida.
Consumers will buy another brand without these annoyances
Right, just like how consumers can switch to a different ISP when they don't like the terms from their current ISP. There's really only a handful of car manufacturers, and if one finds a way to earn more revenue, they'll all follow.
To get through NAT and overly restrictive corporate firewalls? That's why I would use LogMeIn. My boss even recommended I use it.
If they block outbound SSH through the firewall but allow LogmeIn, I'd say that's an underly restrictive corporate firewall.
By the way, to get a better size perspective of the rock, check out this show from the front Hazcam:
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/f/3540/1F442454318EFFCAEOP1214L0M1.JPG
You can easily see that this object could have been tossed by the wheels when you see the size comparison to the wheels.
All I can see in that picture is a shadow of and armless Johnny Five from Short Circuit. How did he get on Mars, what happened to his arms, and why is he screwing with Opportunity?
Isn't this type of thing exactly why modern operating systems have multiple users? You install as much software for your user as you want to, and when your wife logs on with her user account to do music editing or whatever, she doesn't see any of your development tools at all.
I run a LAMP environment + PostgreSQL + Java (Eclipse, Tomcat, Android JDK, etc) on a 6 year old desktop computer with 5GB of RAM and it runs just fine - sure, there are several backup services running (databases, tomcat, webservers), but they run in the background and don't keep me from getting work done.
When my wife and I were sharing the same desktop computer, I ran a second X server, so she could hit a hotkey to switch over to her desktop without affecting anything on my desktop. Now she uses a Tablet for everything she used to do on the desktop, so I'm the only user.
If we want the death penalty to be a deterrent against crime
The technical name for this kind of argument is ex falso quodlibet. You start with a premise that is false, and from there you can infer anything, and it will be at least as true as your original axiom. It has been shown by numerous studies that the death penalty does not provide a deterrent, because few people who commit the kind of crime where it is applicable expect to be caught and rationally weighs the options (and the ones that do don't care what happens to them).
Oh you mean like what I said in my second paragraph?
My principle reason for wanting a painless and relatively low stress execution method is that we have an imperfect justice system. Which means we periodically commit murder in the name of executing criminals. Other than some sense of vindication we as a society gain very little from a condemned persons suffering. So in the event of an innocent person being put to death I would at the least hope that there last few minutes of life are not spent in agonizing pain.
So far as deterance goes I don't think that it really works very well because that only works when people make logical decisions about what they are doing. When murder is involved there is rarely much sound reasoning happening. Additionally I think it makes more sense for such a criminal to meet a quiet ignominous end.
I'm not sure that executing innocent people more humanely is morally superior than executing them painfully - if we have to kill people carefully because they might be innocent, maybe we shouldn't be killing them at all. A few minutes of pain as we kill them hardly seems worse than the fact that we are killing them in the first place.
If we want the death penalty to be a deterrent against crime, potential criminals should have to face a death that's scary, and not expect a painless injection that lets them quietly pass away.
Though I question the value of any death penalty as a deterrent since it's so rarely applied and the criminal either thinks he's going to get away with it or isn't worried about the consequences no matter what the consequences are -- 5 years in prison and then death might be even more attractive to some than a lifetime in prison.
Even if a movie was playing on the device, it doesnt prove it caused the crash. Thats the whole point, you not only have to prove that the device was playing something distracting but that I was looking at it AND it was the main source of distractions. Your argument is basically, "thats messy, lets just blanket everything in law, instead of respecting Liberty." Disclaimer: I have no desire to watch movies in my car, BUT I DO want to be able to add displays and work on HUDs without worrying about knee-jerk law.
Yes, since studies have proven that distracted driving causes crashes, anything that provides unnecessary distractions from driving is banned. It's nearly impossible to prove that someone was distracted at the moment of a crash, even in-car video wouldn't prove that definitively, so instead the law attacks the source of the problem -- by banning distracting devices. Some drivers may not be distracted by a movie playing in the center console that a passenger is watching, but enough drivers are distracted by such things that they are prohibited by law.
The vehicle code isn't there to make your driving experience pleasant and to provide you with entertainment options - it's there to create safe conditions for you *and* for other drivers.
However, why do you keep saying that the law is preventing you from creating displays and HUDs when the law specifically allows vehicle information displays? All you have to do to make it legal is make sure it only displays vehicle information while driving. Plenty of amateur racers have extra displays and/or gauges to display turbo boost, G forces, and a wide range of other data in their street cars. If you want to create a HUD that shows non-vehicle information, then that's banned, and banned for good reason.
It's possible that you'll run into problems from the police with any sort of wearable device like Google Glass that might obstruct your vision, but if you can demonstrate that it shows that it's interlocked to only show relevant vehicle information while driving and cannot show entertainment information, then it shouldn't be a problem since under the current law, that would be legal. (though I expect the law to be updated to cover wearable devices before too long).
It SERIOUSLY infringes Liberty for Safety using undefined fear. There is NOTHING dangerous about having a non-interlocked display, its the USE that can possibly be dangerous. If i get in an accident and you can prove i was watching a movie, by all means throw the book at me. But the law, as written is overly broad and needs serious review to address its Liberty shortcomings.
Therein lies the problem -- if you're watching a movie and get into an accident, you're going to claim "But I was just using my tablet as a GPS" and it would be difficult to prove otherwise. While if the car physically interlocks the display to prevent it from displaying a movie while driving, then there's no question.
The law is terrible, stop trying to make things fit into it.
You keep saying that, but what is so terrible about it? It seems like one of the more reasonable laws that covers most devices and allows reasonable exceptions.
Unless you're arguing that displaying entertainment or business apps to drivers is a good thing? You may want to get a tweet while driving, and it might be safer to display it on a Google Glass display than to make you pick up your phone to read it, but that doesn't mean that it's safe for you to read it at all.
Why? Can you articulate an answer that can avoid the CCTV argument? (CCTV is everywhere you are likely to encounter a google glass wearer, so whats the difference?)
I've yet to see a CCTV in a public restroom, or at a private party in someones home (they may have a camera over the driveway, but they aren't scanning anyone's face with them). However, I've seen GG in both places.
I think any lawyer worth $0.02 would get that argument thrown out in court. The law does not stipulate that the device must ONLY be capable of those things.
A California Superior Court disagrees with you.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/04/09/court-rules-using-cell-phone-for-gps-violates-hands-free-driving-laws/
Does that have the force of law? I can't find anything in the California Code (http://www.ca.gov/about/government/state/lawsandregs.html) that looks like it establishes any laws or authorizes any any agencies to create regulations regarding the operation of a motor vehicle.
There's a section under motor vehicles for computer crime, though, for some reason - Title 13, Division 2, section 12. Interestingly, the CCR page is the second application I've ever seen that uses silverlight.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you looking for some loophole that says that the California Vehicle Code is not the law, or do you not understand that the CVC *is* the law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Vehicle_Code
Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
No, it doesn't: it IS CAPABLE OF displaying a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications".
Right, and that's why its not allowed while driving -- it has no known interlock preventing it from displaying such video while driving, therefore, it's not allowed to be used while driving - not even if you put it into "GPS mode" and promise not to use it to check texts - without an interlock you're not allowed to use Google Glass while driving.
There are still jobs out there for power engineers - I have a friend that works at a construction engineering firm and they have trouble finding qualified and experienced electrical engineers to fill some positions.
I'd imagine that a lot of electronics design work has been outsourced to the same companies that are building the electronics, and probably a lot of the tricky electrical design work has been replaced by digital electronics. Using a 16Mhz microcontroller might be overkill to read at a few analog inputs to generate some outputs, but your offshore manufacturer can likely use an off-the-shelf design to implement it for less than the cost of using discrete chips.
What about the DVD driving lock? Can be easily tampered so it's up to the user to respect the law... why should a mobile phone be different?
Feel free to explain that to the judge "Your honor, I admit that I was using my phone as as GPS while driving, which is a clear violation of the law against cell phone use while driving, but since the interlock on in-car DVD players are easily (and illegally) tampered with, I obviously should not have gotten that ticket. Hey, I'm defending our future here, and who wants a future where drivers can't use their phones while driving!?"
Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
Unless it was being used as a "vehicle information display", right? I mean, just like the magic of 'on a computer' turns mathematics into an invention, the display of information transforms a device into a "vehicle information display". The reason this must be true is because you can not find me a GPS that I can not hack and put Tetris on, or a digital speedometer I can not hack to be a stock ticker. So, the information displayed must transform the device.
Yes, the information currently provided on the display transforms the display, no magic needed - if it's showing a GPS display, it's a GPS, if it's showing a Justin Bieber video, it's an entertainment device. Some cars have large GPS displays that can show entertainment videos while the car is in park -- when it's used in GPS mode, the law considers it a GPS, and since the interlock prevents it from being used for entertainment while driving, it's perfectly legal.
Due to the fact that (A) I can bypass the interlock,
If you can easily bypass the interlock, like with a dash mounted switch, then its not really an interlock.
But if you do modify your car or the device to bypass the interlock, then it's no longer "interlocked", so you're in violation of the law if you use it while driving. If a cop sees you watching TV while driving, he's going to know that you bypassed the interlock. Perhaps more importantly, if you get into an accident and investigation shows that you've intentionally disabled the interlock or had a non-interlocked entertainment device present, then you'll likely face additional liability or criminal charges.
and that no one on this planet can (B) design anything in any way as to "prevent the driver" (me) from operating it however I please, or even determine that my operation and viewing thereof is NOT in a "safe and reasonable manner",
That's why the law exists -- to keep everyone on the planet from developing entertainment devices that you can use while driving. The law apparently considers any "entertainment" or "business application" to be distracting, regardless of your own beliefs about what you think you can do in a "safe and reasonable manner" - your opinion doesn't matter, the law has already decided it for you. You may not like it and you may not agree, but you'll still get a ticket if caught watching TV while driving.
and beyond these: The fact that all raster displays are video signals, including some in-dash information displays (speedometers, odometers, fuel, etc), Section A and B are so unenforcable that they do in-fact hinder the future development of automotive technology. I don't know about you, but I'd love to be able to (slowly) drive in a dense fog, or blizzard using a computer generated "video feed" of EXTERNAL information (as distinguished from vehicle information) on my HUD.
If a "video feed" is being used as a vehicle information display, then it's allowed, the only video that's not allowed is entertainment or a business application, so I'm not sure which part of the law you feel is unenforceable. Some cars already have night vision cameras with a driver viewable display and it seems like this would be allowed under section 4 A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
What if you say that you the glass is your GPS, has an android "driving lock" that disables its use for anything else?
Not that I defend glassholes , but enjoy finding workarounds to the law.
I think you'd have to convince a judge that the "driving lock" was active and there's no way to bypass it. People have unsuccessfully tried to argue that using their phone as a GPS doesn't violate the law against using cell phones while driving, so the "driving lock" would probably have to be a built-in Android feature that the user can't disable (though rooting your phone may cloud the issue)
[Of course, there is an argument to be made that the cop who wrote the ticket very likely had a dash mounted laptop which violates the law in question.]
I didn't post the entire CVC section since I didn't think the rest pertained to the case in question, but there's an exception for police and other "authorized emergency vehicles":
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
So most GPS systems are illegal, as most are not "installed", and a dash-mounted tablet used exclusively for GPS is illegal, as it doesn't have an interlock device.
Most GPS systems are "installed" so far as they are clipped into a holder, as people tend to remove them often to prevent theft.
I don't know the legal definition of "installed", so I don't know if a GPS suction cupped to the window or to a dash mount is "installed" or not. There is a separate CVC section that covers where a GPS can be mounted.
But it's true that using a phone or tablet as a GPS can get you into trouble - cell phone tickets have been issued to people while using their cell phone only as a GPS device, if it's not a dedicated GPS unit, then it's not a GPS.
It's irrelevant that there is "no evidence" Glass was being used while driving. The fact of the matter is Abadie was wearing Glass while driving and California law prohibits driving even with a computer sitting closed on the front passenger seat or anywhere in the front of the car.
Have a citation for that? The CVC section banning TV's bans only *operating* displays, not displays that are turned or not visible to the driver.