The best way to tell when a moron is driving near you is to look for an occupied vehicle. If you rely on any technology to tell you someone is "safe" you have just made a very dangerous assumption.
Open container laws still fully serve the point they were intended to serve. Open container laws were put on the books to make the circumstance a crime, ignoring the presence or absence of the original crime itself. The presence of an open container does nothing to make a driver drunk. Drinking passengers do nothing to make the drive drunk. Having a bunch of drinking passengers (and open containers) does nothing more to impair the driver than if the passengers had immediately quit drinking before getting in the car.
Open containers are no holdover. They were the beginning. Our government will continue to seek making circumstances illegal since circumstances are often more observable than the crime itself. It doesn't matter that "possession of burglary tools" makes you a criminal by walking home from Home Depot. It doesn't matter if "possession of drug paraphernalia" makes you a criminal by walking home with a new creme brulee torch and measuring spoon. You can trust government to only go after the bad guys, right?
The government doesn't take your rights away. You give them away by rationalizing you are somehow safer without them.
I cannot imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a vehicle to do anything with their phone they wanted to.
Really? You need to exercise your imagination more. Here is something that is not really much of a stretch. Can you imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a car to drink whatever he wanted to? It is only illegal to drive under the influence, but open container laws apply to passengers too.
Your elected government overlords have no duty to use logic, either sound or flawed, when making laws. There is benefit for them in making things illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
The best way to tell when a moron is driving near you is to look for an occupied vehicle. If you rely on any technology to tell you someone is "safe" you have just made a very dangerous assumption.
Open container laws still fully serve the point they were intended to serve. Open container laws were put on the books to make the circumstance a crime, ignoring the presence or absence of the original crime itself. The presence of an open container does nothing to make a driver drunk. Drinking passengers do nothing to make the drive drunk. Having a bunch of drinking passengers (and open containers) does nothing more to impair the driver than if the passengers had immediately quit drinking before getting in the car.
Open containers are no holdover. They were the beginning. Our government will continue to seek making circumstances illegal since circumstances are often more observable than the crime itself. It doesn't matter that "possession of burglary tools" makes you a criminal by walking home from Home Depot. It doesn't matter if "possession of drug paraphernalia" makes you a criminal by walking home with a new creme brulee torch and measuring spoon. You can trust government to only go after the bad guys, right?
The government doesn't take your rights away. You give them away by rationalizing you are somehow safer without them.
I cannot imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a vehicle to do anything with their phone they wanted to.
Really? You need to exercise your imagination more. Here is something that is not really much of a stretch. Can you imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a car to drink whatever he wanted to? It is only illegal to drive under the influence, but open container laws apply to passengers too.
Your elected government overlords have no duty to use logic, either sound or flawed, when making laws. There is benefit for them in making things illegal.
pbskids.org
thomasandfriends.com
Keep the computer in the shared family room and keep the usage limited.
jollyreaper for President in 2012. You have my vote.
If a bomber straps the bomb to a child, he is no longer a suicide bomber.
I would still not willingly subject my children to TSA molestation.