The problem is that we need someone to decide what is Constitutional. Say it isn't the courts. It is Congress? If so then I know plenty of politicians (on both sides) who would decide that the First Amendment actually means you have the right to say anything you want - so long as you agree with them. i.e. Dissent is illegal.
Maybe it's the Executive Branch? All it would take then is one President to decide that signing an executive order suspending elections indefinitely is Constitutional.
The people? Good luck getting them to vote out Congressfolk or a President based on bad laws being passed. Not when they've got the difficult choice of watching Boy Band X on America's Got Talent or seeing who gets voted out on Survivor. And too many of the people who pay attention and actually are involved seem to think that a theocracy would be perfectly Constitutional.
So we need someone who will decide what is Constitutional and what isn't. The courts' purpose is to judge things so they seemed like the right choice. Is it perfect? Of course not. You could easily point to a dozen Supreme Court rulings that, given today's sensibilities, sound horribly unconstitutional. However, it's still better than letting Congress or the President decide.
Some here seem to think that the only types of skirts around are the ones that are so short that barely anything is hidden. Skirts come in different lengths. Perhaps the woman thought she was covered up and the skirt hiked itself up in just the right way so that something was visible. Perhaps the pervert just used shoe cameras, pretended to be stooping on the ground to tie his shoes, or some other ploy to take photos up women's skirts. The women obviously didn't consent to this so he shouldn't be allowed to do this.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that you don't get to walk around outside and then claim people taking your photograph are invading your privacy. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are walking outside, but there are limits to that. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy under their clothes. A woman wearing a skirt is not an invitation to take a photo up the skirt any more than a man wearing shorts is an invitation to take a photo up the shorts leg.
RIAA's Response: These people *claim* not to like music? Why that's unamerican! If this catches on, the entire music industry will collapse!!!!! We must pass immediate legislation declaring "not liking music" to be illegal. To prove consumers like music, they will be required to purchase at least three albums from RIAA-approved labels every year. Failure to do so will be considered proof that the consumer is actually an Internet pirate stealing our works and will be sued into oblivion.
Or better yet, don't take images from Getty without paying for them. Need an image for free? There are plenty of sites you can use such as OpenClipArt.org, Morgue File, or Wikimedia Commons. You can also search Flickr for images with Creative Commons licenses that allow for the type of use you need. If you really, really, REALLY need an image on a stock photo site like Getty Images and no other free alternative will do, then why not actually pay for it?
The problem is that this "hurts for one minute" is happening right now. The "sick for days" is in some theoretical future that may not happen. Immediate trumps the nebulous future with kids many times. I've told my boys this over and over and yet we still have issues when it comes time for the shot. Were they to have a choice in the matter, I'm sure they'd say they'd get the shot... right up to the moment when the doctor took out the needle. Then they'd change their mind and refuse it. (It doesn't help that my oldest has anxiety issues and needles are one of his triggers.) Thankfully, they don't really have a say in the matter since they are children and my wife and I are their parents.
I let them have a say in other matters within reason. They might get to choose which shirt and pants they wear, but they won't get to choose the shorts and thin T-Shirt when it's 6 degrees out. This can help them learn to make decisions while recognizing that they aren't ready to make the really important ones just yet. As they get older, they'll get to make more decisions of greater and greater importance. If I do my job right (and I certainly hope I do), they'll be able to make informed decisions when they are an adult. Then, if/when they have kids, the cycle will repeat itself.
I'm buying a new laptop soon and will get a Windows 8 one (mainly because that's almost all there is on the market right now). The first thing I plan on doing is installing one of the many programs available to remove Metro and replace it with the classic Windows desktop/start menu.
My son is doing math like that in school. Only he doesn't fill in the box. He's being taught to draw five circles. Then circle three of them. Then count the remaining circles and that's his answer. This is in first grade. They do subtraction like this also. They're not being taught to actually work with the numbers. Everything is "draw a picture." Sadly, the teachers are being forced to use this curriculum (EngageNY) and can't change it to help kids who learn at different rates or in different ways.
I'd rather my kids have puzzles than the math they're coming home with. For example, my fifth grader had one problem:
2.8 / 0.7 = ?
Sounds fine, right? Except they aren't supposed to divide the numbers. If they actually divide the numbers, they get marked as wrong. Instead, they need to draw 2 boxes, dividing each one in 10 segments. Then they are supposed to shade 28 of those segments. Next, they are supposed to draw another series of shaded, segmented boxes with 7 segments each until they have 28 segments. The number of boxes they have is their answer.
How is this math? They aren't teaching the kids to work with the numbers. They aren't teaching the kids how actual math works. They're teaching "draw some pictures." It doesn't scale at all. (Try solving 249.494 / 17.57 with this method. I won't wait while you draw boxes until your hand cramps.) I taught my son the real way of doing it and would like to see his teacher mark him as wrong for not following their "Common Core/EngageNY" method.
I make decisions for my kids all the time. They're going to eat this healthy food for dinner instead of McDonalds (which they only really want because it comes with a 10 cent colorful piece of plastic that they'll play with for all of 10 seconds). They're going to go to school when they'd love to sit at home all day playing video games. They're going to do their homework instead of watching TV. They're coming with us to the store to go grocery shopping instead of remaining at home. (They are 10 and 6 which we feel is much too young to stay home alone.) They will brush their teeth twice a day. They will go to the doctor for checkups. And so on.
What allows my wife and I to make these decisions for them? We're their parents. They are children and don't have the maturity to make many decisions for themselves. It is our job to make these decisions for them while teaching them which decisions are right (e.g. taking showers) and which are wrong (e.g. skipping them for weeks on end because you just don't feel like it).
These decisions include things like my kids getting vaccinated. Trust me, my kids would skip vaccinations if they could. They don't understand things like "infection risks" and the like. All they know if vaccination = getting poked by a needle that hurts. They would skip the "needle hurt" if we let them, but we know that this needle stick is *SO* much better than any of the diseases that the vaccines protect against. Any one who tells me that I have no right to "force" vaccinations on my kids either 1) isn't a parent themselves or 2) gives kids far too much credit for making rational decisions.
There are babies who are too young to be vaccinated and people who have immune system issues or allergies which mean they can't get the vaccines. These people are relying on all of us to be vaccinated for herd immunity to kick in. If one or two people don't vaccinate because "A friend said it causes autism", then honestly it's not a big deal. Herd immunity will remain in place. But when large amounts of people stop vaccinating because "Jenny McCarthy said it has toxins in it" (just before she got a Botox injection, mind you), herd immunity breaks down and those who rely on herd immunity suffer.
If not vaccinating only meant that the non-vaccinated got sick, I'd be against mandatory vaccinations and would instead just strongly urge people to do so. However, since one person's lack of vaccination can easily affect another person (or dozen people), vaccinations should be mandatory (with only health exemptions allowed).
My wife has experienced gender discrimination also. Most recently, our power company was coming by to do some work on a pole behind our house. They wanted to pull a giant truck up our neighbor's narrow driveway (right up against our house), onto our lawn, reach it over our garage, and do the work. When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit later, they treated me like an actual homeowner concerned about his house.
As far as pay goes, though, I have nothing to compare against. I don't know my co-workers' salaries and even if I did there are different levels of experience and they do slightly different jobs than I do. The two women I mainly work with might actually be paid more than me because of years of experience.
My wife bought a reusable "Keurig" pod. You fill it up with your favorite ground coffee (or grind your own if you like and put it in the pod). Then, you put the pod in the Keurig, brew your single cup of coffee, clean out the pod (it's dishwasher safe) and reuse it. We buy big containers of coffee at BJ's that last her for months instead of spending the same amount of money for about two weeks' worth of pods.
As far as these "DRM-pods" go, we'll stick with our "DRM-less" Keurig. (Which we only got because we won it.) Should we need to replace it, there are other, similar devices. If Keurig tries to lock people in to only using "Official Keurig Approved Pods", we'll go with another coffee maker that doesn't limit our use.
When I was in college, one of my computer science professors told us that everything he was teaching us would be obsolete by the time we graduated. However, the concepts behind what we were learning would be valuable our entire career. Sure enough, I've never used the exact code in the exact language he taught us, but the generic concepts behind that work in almost any language I program in.
It depends. Does this mean work will come with cheat codes also?
Up-Up-Down-Down-Left-Right-Left-Right-B-A
You've Unlocked: Infinite Salary! *goes on a spending spree*
(Back when I played SimCity and Warcraft - pre "World Of"- I was horrible at managing resources in the game. Mainly because it always felt like work instead of fun. So I'd just use cheat codes to give myself infinite of whatever I needed and then had fun from there.)
I don't really have a comment. I'm just trying to get more Slashdot Experience Points so I can level up. Now to answer some more e-mails. I'm already a Level 11 Inbox Reply Wizard. Level 12, here I come!
I wonder what the logical conclusion of this would be if it's allowed to stand?
Officer: "I'm sorry, but I can't confirm or deny that my fellow officers and I beat that civilian. Our contract with the dashboard camera company specifically disallows the use of the footage in cases such as this."
Businessman: "We can't confirm or deny the dumping of that toxic waste in the local playground due to an NDA with We Dump It 4 U, Inc."
Politician: "I can't confirm or deny going on an all expenses paid trip with Lobbyist X due to an NDA that we signed just before I left for vacation."
Average Citizen: "....." --- Nothing because everything will remain the same for us.
If I had an extra $10,000 a month to spend, I'd much rather spend it on vacations with my family than microtransactions in a game. Call me crazy, but $10,000 can buy a pretty incredible vacation (or a series of incredible vacations) with life-long memories. Who's really going to look back 20 years from now on how they got some extra items in some mobile game that likely won't even exist anymore?
No, but if you had 100 bullets coming at you and had the opportunity to hold a shield that would catch 99 of the bullets, would you really refuse holding it because it wouldn't catch 100% of the bullets? You don't stop the bullets by saying "don't come at me until I have a shield that will stop all the bullets."
The story actually brought to mind a set of short stories I read recently: Machine of Death
Inspired by a Dinosaur Comics strip, the short stories all share one element: They have a machine that someone (often many people) in the stories use that tells them how they will die. Not when, but how. And not exactly how either. "Stroke" can mean that you are in an airplane crash due to the pilot having a stroke. "Old age" can mean you get run over by an old guy driving a car. However, people in these stories must live their lives knowing that what is on that slip of paper is coming for them.
Knock on the door? I had one couple try to convert me and my family in an elevator in Walmart. If I'm going to change my religious affiliation, it won't be based on a one minute conversation in a Walmart elevator!
Obstruction of Justice, of course. Letting the police search what they want, when they want, without the hassle of getting a warrant has now been classified as "Justice." If you oppose that, you are obstructing Justice and must be arrested. Now, are you going to come quietly, or do they need to add Resisting Arrest to the charges?
An answer from someone who is straight: You and I might think it's gross, but that's someone else's idea of a good time. Just like I might love eating certain foods that others find gross or I might enjoy reading some kinds of books that others would find tedious. People have different interests and enjoy different activities. To me, the idea of sleeping with a man sounds gross, but I know that some men think the exact same thing about sleeping with a woman. To each his own.
Getting back on topic: I might think that the act itself is "gross" (as in "I wouldn't want to do that") but as long as nobody is forcing me to watch or take part in said activities (and last time I checked nobody is), other people engaging in activities I don't myself enjoy doesn't affect me at all. Not doing business with someone just because they partake in an activity that you personally don't like is idiotic. Come to think of it, nobody in the LGBT community is forcing me to watch/partake in sexual acts that I don't enjoy, but plenty of people in the religious fundamentalist community are trying to force their religion on me. Who's the bigger threat to freedom here?
Anything that needs a camera needs a mobile app because mobile browsers tend to severely cripple web applications' access to the device's camera if they allow it at all. An online store needs a mobile app in order to let the user search products by barcode. A bank needs a mobile app to let the user scan checks for deposit.
Point taken. So if your "website turned app" is going to actually use the additional features that an app would provide, you might need an app. (It's up to the users whether the additional features warrant an app, of course.) However, if you're just going to take the mobile version of your website that would show up in any mobile browser with no additional features, and want to package it in an app (really a glorified one-website-browser), you don't need an app at all.
The last accident I got into was because I was distracted by a Driver's Ed car on my street. I was keeping tabs on what they were doing so much (so as not to hit them), that I hit another car while pulling out of my driveway. Meanwhile, the other driver was keeping tabs on said driver's ed car so much (trying to drive around him) that he didn't see me pulling out of my driveway. I'd love to ban those Driver's Ed cars driving down residential streets for practice.
Not to mention the fact that, while piloting a jet can be very dangerous, you rarely have to worry about other jets intersecting your flight path because you didn't see the floating stop sign while you were texting.
Piloting a jet generally means you need to keep your jet in the air. Driving a car generally means keeping your car in the correct lane, stopping and starting at the right times, making sure all drivers around you are driving in a safe manner, and taking precautions if they aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that we need someone to decide what is Constitutional. Say it isn't the courts. It is Congress? If so then I know plenty of politicians (on both sides) who would decide that the First Amendment actually means you have the right to say anything you want - so long as you agree with them. i.e. Dissent is illegal.
Maybe it's the Executive Branch? All it would take then is one President to decide that signing an executive order suspending elections indefinitely is Constitutional.
The people? Good luck getting them to vote out Congressfolk or a President based on bad laws being passed. Not when they've got the difficult choice of watching Boy Band X on America's Got Talent or seeing who gets voted out on Survivor. And too many of the people who pay attention and actually are involved seem to think that a theocracy would be perfectly Constitutional.
So we need someone who will decide what is Constitutional and what isn't. The courts' purpose is to judge things so they seemed like the right choice. Is it perfect? Of course not. You could easily point to a dozen Supreme Court rulings that, given today's sensibilities, sound horribly unconstitutional. However, it's still better than letting Congress or the President decide.
Some here seem to think that the only types of skirts around are the ones that are so short that barely anything is hidden. Skirts come in different lengths. Perhaps the woman thought she was covered up and the skirt hiked itself up in just the right way so that something was visible. Perhaps the pervert just used shoe cameras, pretended to be stooping on the ground to tie his shoes, or some other ploy to take photos up women's skirts. The women obviously didn't consent to this so he shouldn't be allowed to do this.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that you don't get to walk around outside and then claim people taking your photograph are invading your privacy. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are walking outside, but there are limits to that. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy under their clothes. A woman wearing a skirt is not an invitation to take a photo up the skirt any more than a man wearing shorts is an invitation to take a photo up the shorts leg.
RIAA's Response: These people *claim* not to like music? Why that's unamerican! If this catches on, the entire music industry will collapse!!!!! We must pass immediate legislation declaring "not liking music" to be illegal. To prove consumers like music, they will be required to purchase at least three albums from RIAA-approved labels every year. Failure to do so will be considered proof that the consumer is actually an Internet pirate stealing our works and will be sued into oblivion.
Or better yet, don't take images from Getty without paying for them. Need an image for free? There are plenty of sites you can use such as OpenClipArt.org, Morgue File, or Wikimedia Commons. You can also search Flickr for images with Creative Commons licenses that allow for the type of use you need. If you really, really, REALLY need an image on a stock photo site like Getty Images and no other free alternative will do, then why not actually pay for it?
The problem is that this "hurts for one minute" is happening right now. The "sick for days" is in some theoretical future that may not happen. Immediate trumps the nebulous future with kids many times. I've told my boys this over and over and yet we still have issues when it comes time for the shot. Were they to have a choice in the matter, I'm sure they'd say they'd get the shot... right up to the moment when the doctor took out the needle. Then they'd change their mind and refuse it. (It doesn't help that my oldest has anxiety issues and needles are one of his triggers.) Thankfully, they don't really have a say in the matter since they are children and my wife and I are their parents.
I let them have a say in other matters within reason. They might get to choose which shirt and pants they wear, but they won't get to choose the shorts and thin T-Shirt when it's 6 degrees out. This can help them learn to make decisions while recognizing that they aren't ready to make the really important ones just yet. As they get older, they'll get to make more decisions of greater and greater importance. If I do my job right (and I certainly hope I do), they'll be able to make informed decisions when they are an adult. Then, if/when they have kids, the cycle will repeat itself.
I'm buying a new laptop soon and will get a Windows 8 one (mainly because that's almost all there is on the market right now). The first thing I plan on doing is installing one of the many programs available to remove Metro and replace it with the classic Windows desktop/start menu.
My son is doing math like that in school. Only he doesn't fill in the box. He's being taught to draw five circles. Then circle three of them. Then count the remaining circles and that's his answer. This is in first grade. They do subtraction like this also. They're not being taught to actually work with the numbers. Everything is "draw a picture." Sadly, the teachers are being forced to use this curriculum (EngageNY) and can't change it to help kids who learn at different rates or in different ways.
I'd rather my kids have puzzles than the math they're coming home with. For example, my fifth grader had one problem:
2.8 / 0.7 = ?
Sounds fine, right? Except they aren't supposed to divide the numbers. If they actually divide the numbers, they get marked as wrong. Instead, they need to draw 2 boxes, dividing each one in 10 segments. Then they are supposed to shade 28 of those segments. Next, they are supposed to draw another series of shaded, segmented boxes with 7 segments each until they have 28 segments. The number of boxes they have is their answer.
How is this math? They aren't teaching the kids to work with the numbers. They aren't teaching the kids how actual math works. They're teaching "draw some pictures." It doesn't scale at all. (Try solving 249.494 / 17.57 with this method. I won't wait while you draw boxes until your hand cramps.) I taught my son the real way of doing it and would like to see his teacher mark him as wrong for not following their "Common Core/EngageNY" method.
I make decisions for my kids all the time. They're going to eat this healthy food for dinner instead of McDonalds (which they only really want because it comes with a 10 cent colorful piece of plastic that they'll play with for all of 10 seconds). They're going to go to school when they'd love to sit at home all day playing video games. They're going to do their homework instead of watching TV. They're coming with us to the store to go grocery shopping instead of remaining at home. (They are 10 and 6 which we feel is much too young to stay home alone.) They will brush their teeth twice a day. They will go to the doctor for checkups. And so on.
What allows my wife and I to make these decisions for them? We're their parents. They are children and don't have the maturity to make many decisions for themselves. It is our job to make these decisions for them while teaching them which decisions are right (e.g. taking showers) and which are wrong (e.g. skipping them for weeks on end because you just don't feel like it).
These decisions include things like my kids getting vaccinated. Trust me, my kids would skip vaccinations if they could. They don't understand things like "infection risks" and the like. All they know if vaccination = getting poked by a needle that hurts. They would skip the "needle hurt" if we let them, but we know that this needle stick is *SO* much better than any of the diseases that the vaccines protect against. Any one who tells me that I have no right to "force" vaccinations on my kids either 1) isn't a parent themselves or 2) gives kids far too much credit for making rational decisions.
There are babies who are too young to be vaccinated and people who have immune system issues or allergies which mean they can't get the vaccines. These people are relying on all of us to be vaccinated for herd immunity to kick in. If one or two people don't vaccinate because "A friend said it causes autism", then honestly it's not a big deal. Herd immunity will remain in place. But when large amounts of people stop vaccinating because "Jenny McCarthy said it has toxins in it" (just before she got a Botox injection, mind you), herd immunity breaks down and those who rely on herd immunity suffer.
If not vaccinating only meant that the non-vaccinated got sick, I'd be against mandatory vaccinations and would instead just strongly urge people to do so. However, since one person's lack of vaccination can easily affect another person (or dozen people), vaccinations should be mandatory (with only health exemptions allowed).
My wife has experienced gender discrimination also. Most recently, our power company was coming by to do some work on a pole behind our house. They wanted to pull a giant truck up our neighbor's narrow driveway (right up against our house), onto our lawn, reach it over our garage, and do the work. When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit later, they treated me like an actual homeowner concerned about his house.
As far as pay goes, though, I have nothing to compare against. I don't know my co-workers' salaries and even if I did there are different levels of experience and they do slightly different jobs than I do. The two women I mainly work with might actually be paid more than me because of years of experience.
My wife bought a reusable "Keurig" pod. You fill it up with your favorite ground coffee (or grind your own if you like and put it in the pod). Then, you put the pod in the Keurig, brew your single cup of coffee, clean out the pod (it's dishwasher safe) and reuse it. We buy big containers of coffee at BJ's that last her for months instead of spending the same amount of money for about two weeks' worth of pods.
As far as these "DRM-pods" go, we'll stick with our "DRM-less" Keurig. (Which we only got because we won it.) Should we need to replace it, there are other, similar devices. If Keurig tries to lock people in to only using "Official Keurig Approved Pods", we'll go with another coffee maker that doesn't limit our use.
When I was in college, one of my computer science professors told us that everything he was teaching us would be obsolete by the time we graduated. However, the concepts behind what we were learning would be valuable our entire career. Sure enough, I've never used the exact code in the exact language he taught us, but the generic concepts behind that work in almost any language I program in.
It depends. Does this mean work will come with cheat codes also?
Up-Up-Down-Down-Left-Right-Left-Right-B-A
You've Unlocked: Infinite Salary! *goes on a spending spree*
(Back when I played SimCity and Warcraft - pre "World Of"- I was horrible at managing resources in the game. Mainly because it always felt like work instead of fun. So I'd just use cheat codes to give myself infinite of whatever I needed and then had fun from there.)
I don't really have a comment. I'm just trying to get more Slashdot Experience Points so I can level up. Now to answer some more e-mails. I'm already a Level 11 Inbox Reply Wizard. Level 12, here I come!
I wonder what the logical conclusion of this would be if it's allowed to stand?
Officer: "I'm sorry, but I can't confirm or deny that my fellow officers and I beat that civilian. Our contract with the dashboard camera company specifically disallows the use of the footage in cases such as this."
Businessman: "We can't confirm or deny the dumping of that toxic waste in the local playground due to an NDA with We Dump It 4 U, Inc."
Politician: "I can't confirm or deny going on an all expenses paid trip with Lobbyist X due to an NDA that we signed just before I left for vacation."
Average Citizen: "....." --- Nothing because everything will remain the same for us.
If I had an extra $10,000 a month to spend, I'd much rather spend it on vacations with my family than microtransactions in a game. Call me crazy, but $10,000 can buy a pretty incredible vacation (or a series of incredible vacations) with life-long memories. Who's really going to look back 20 years from now on how they got some extra items in some mobile game that likely won't even exist anymore?
No, but if you had 100 bullets coming at you and had the opportunity to hold a shield that would catch 99 of the bullets, would you really refuse holding it because it wouldn't catch 100% of the bullets? You don't stop the bullets by saying "don't come at me until I have a shield that will stop all the bullets."
The story actually brought to mind a set of short stories I read recently: Machine of Death
Inspired by a Dinosaur Comics strip, the short stories all share one element: They have a machine that someone (often many people) in the stories use that tells them how they will die. Not when, but how. And not exactly how either. "Stroke" can mean that you are in an airplane crash due to the pilot having a stroke. "Old age" can mean you get run over by an old guy driving a car. However, people in these stories must live their lives knowing that what is on that slip of paper is coming for them.
Knock on the door? I had one couple try to convert me and my family in an elevator in Walmart. If I'm going to change my religious affiliation, it won't be based on a one minute conversation in a Walmart elevator!
Obstruction of Justice, of course. Letting the police search what they want, when they want, without the hassle of getting a warrant has now been classified as "Justice." If you oppose that, you are obstructing Justice and must be arrested. Now, are you going to come quietly, or do they need to add Resisting Arrest to the charges?
An answer from someone who is straight: You and I might think it's gross, but that's someone else's idea of a good time. Just like I might love eating certain foods that others find gross or I might enjoy reading some kinds of books that others would find tedious. People have different interests and enjoy different activities. To me, the idea of sleeping with a man sounds gross, but I know that some men think the exact same thing about sleeping with a woman. To each his own.
Getting back on topic: I might think that the act itself is "gross" (as in "I wouldn't want to do that") but as long as nobody is forcing me to watch or take part in said activities (and last time I checked nobody is), other people engaging in activities I don't myself enjoy doesn't affect me at all. Not doing business with someone just because they partake in an activity that you personally don't like is idiotic. Come to think of it, nobody in the LGBT community is forcing me to watch/partake in sexual acts that I don't enjoy, but plenty of people in the religious fundamentalist community are trying to force their religion on me. Who's the bigger threat to freedom here?
Point taken. So if your "website turned app" is going to actually use the additional features that an app would provide, you might need an app. (It's up to the users whether the additional features warrant an app, of course.) However, if you're just going to take the mobile version of your website that would show up in any mobile browser with no additional features, and want to package it in an app (really a glorified one-website-browser), you don't need an app at all.
The last accident I got into was because I was distracted by a Driver's Ed car on my street. I was keeping tabs on what they were doing so much (so as not to hit them), that I hit another car while pulling out of my driveway. Meanwhile, the other driver was keeping tabs on said driver's ed car so much (trying to drive around him) that he didn't see me pulling out of my driveway. I'd love to ban those Driver's Ed cars driving down residential streets for practice.
Not to mention the fact that, while piloting a jet can be very dangerous, you rarely have to worry about other jets intersecting your flight path because you didn't see the floating stop sign while you were texting.
Piloting a jet generally means you need to keep your jet in the air. Driving a car generally means keeping your car in the correct lane, stopping and starting at the right times, making sure all drivers around you are driving in a safe manner, and taking precautions if they aren't.