I mean, if you sit down with a company and say "I would like to work for you" and they say "OK we'll pay you $X for Y-work-done, but you get no benefits, etc" nobody's FORCING you to take that job, are they?
If you don't like it, decline the job and look elsewhere.
If you're desperate for work, then perhaps you HAVE to accept a shitty deal to get a job? Or, you should improve yourself and your skills to make yourself a more attractive candidate for a better position?
I don't really understand why there's this presumption that every job MUST be the perfect life-affirming career with 20 weeks child-leave, infinite sick days, and a complete package of benefits?
So you're perfectly OK with unelected personnel refusing to perform perfectly legal tasks assigned to them by the legally elected leadership of the US government?
Personally, I hope he stops their paychecks. Bureaucrats don't get to anticipatorily refuse lawful instructions from their employer because he *might * do something they disagree with later.
"And it's not just that "something changed", it's that a useful existing standard is being broken for no good reason." So, yes, it IS in fact "something changed" and you're Mr Pogue's cute little white-knight. Adorable.
Maybe the fact that something existed for a while doesn't mean it is intrinsically worth preserving?
Hint: try the pgdwn key? Or your mouse wheel? Or clicking on the slidebar? Or sliding the screen indicator on the slidebar? Considering other web-systems have adopted the spacebar for their functions (ie stop/start video, etc) maybe it was a good time to abandon a method that wasn't all that widely used anyway?
I find the hardest thing to explain to old people is that there usually a multitude of ways to do the same thing on a computer, and not to get too upset or fixated on a single method.
I'm a 50 year old man, btw. "Styopa" is Russian, short for (variously) Stepan. And the arg (in case you're doubting my age) was actually my quake (1) clan [arg!] which I was into when I started reading Slashdot...then they later changed their login format, so I lost the [ and ] and !.
I just find old people that bitch because something changes tiresome.
"For many online shops, the cost of a free shipment is either folded into the prices for items or funded by investors. "
Funded by INVESTORS? Seriously, how could a company operate more than about 15 minutes if its capital investment was being spent on SHIPPING.
It shouldn't be news to anyone: SHIPPING ISN'T ACTUALLY EVER FREE. It's just that shipping costs don't increase proportionally to purchase prices. Here's how it works when they say "if you buy more than $50 shipping is free" Buy item for $10, of which $4 is profit. Costs about $8 to ship. Buy FIVE of them for $50, $20 is profit. Shipping is only maybe $12. So if they throw in free shipping, sure, the retailer only makes $8 profit (instead of $20) but a) their sales quintuple (which is more of a metric companies are measured by), b) more importantly, they've generated goodwill with the customer, c) possibly gained a sale because the final perceived cost-per-item for the customer isn't $18, it's $10..
TiA: I work in logistics for a large manufacturer.
...Person in his second half-century complains that UI element he's comfortable with is no longer as universal as he thinks it should be, and complains angrily that he should never have to change?
Yeah, that's news.
In military slang, 'pogue' is a derogatory term for some REMF that has no clue how the world works in reality. That's about right.
1. George W. Bush passed multi-billion dollar stimuluses on his watch as well. The crisis unfolded in the summer of 2008, remember.
2. In the face of a major downturn, "spending your way out" is the ONLY reliable way to ameliorate it, at least temporarily. You could argue this is just kicking the can down the road, but Democrats did not invert Keynesian economics [wikipedia.org], nor is it a major part of their platform, nor is the Republican platform particularly against it. (On the topic of fiscal responsibility, most of the time they appear to be stuck in the old, rather incoherent anti-Communist propaganda modes. I doubt the majority of them have ever used the word "Keynesian".)
3. Quantitative Easing:...you do realize that the Federal Reserve of the United States of America answers to neither Congress nor the President, right? They can do whatever the hell they want and no one can veto it. They were the ones responsible for the QEs, and they were run by a Republican [wikipedia.org] during all three QEs.
1) I said nothing about Bush Jr. What does he even have to do with the conversation? 2) You understand that not everyone worships at the Holy Altar of Keynes, right? 'Broken Windows' is bullshit of the highest order, a perfect credo to justify politicians spending money on their pet projects. 3) If you think Fed policy isn't guided by the general policies who sits in the Oval Office, you're kidding yourself. You know who appoints the Fed, right?
But a Democrat president can spend like there's no tomorrow and it gets names like "stimulus spending" or "quantitative easing".
No double standard, certainly. Haven't the Democrats told us since 2008 that the ONLY way out of a recession is to spend money the government doesn't have?
US state Website address Alabama www.adeca.alabama.gov Alaska www.publicsurplus.com/ Arizona www.azdoa.gov/agencies/msd/surplus_property/public_auctions.asp Arkansas www.arstatesurplus.com California http://www.dgs.ca.gov/ofam/hom... Colorado www.cijvp.com Connecticut das.ct.gov Delaware www.state.de.us/dss/surplus/index.shtml District of Columbia app.ocp.dc.gov/RUI/information/ppd/ppd_main.asp Florida dms.myflorida.com/dms2/business_operations/ Georgia surplusproperty.doas.georgia.gov - Online auction sales Hawaii auction.ehawaii.gov Idaho fsp.idaho.gov/ Illinois ibid.illinois.gov Indiana www.state.in.us/idoa/surplus/index.html Iowa www.iaprisonind.com das.gse.iowa.gov Kansas da.state.ks.us/surplus/default.htm Kentucky finance.ky.gov Louisiana doa.louisiana.gov/lpaa/auction.htm Maine www.maine.gov/bgs/centralserv/surplus/ Maryland www.dgs.maryland.gov Massachusetts www.mass.gov/portal/ Michigan www.michigan.gov/dmb/ Minnesota www.fss.state.mn.us/auction.htm Mississippi www.dfa.state.ms.us/Offices/SurProp/SurProp.htm Missouri www.oa.mo.gov/purch/surplus.html Montana gsd.mt.gov/local/publicauctions.asp Nebraska www.corrections.state.ne.us/federal_surplus/index.html www.das.state.ne.us/materiel/surplus/surplus.htm Nevada purchasing.state.nv.us/property/auction.htm www.das.state.ne.us/materiel/surplus/surplus.htm purchasing.state.nv.us/property/vehicle.htm New Jersey www.state.nj.us/treasury/dss New Mexico www.generalservices.state.nm.us/transportationservices/publicstorefront New York www.ogs.state.ny.us/supportServices/fedSurplus www.ogs.state.ny.us/supportServices/stateSurplus North Carolina www.surpluspropertydivision.com/ www.ncstatesurplus.com/ssp/public/ssphomepage/ssp.htm North Dakota www.nd.gov/surplus/ Ohio www.das.ohio.gov Oklahoma www.ok.gov/DCS/State_Surplus/index.html Oregon oregonsurplus.com
surplus.oregonstate.edu Pennsylvania www.dgs.state.pa.us/surp_prop/site/default.asp Puerto Rico No website South Carolina www.ogs.state.sc.us/OGS-disposable-index.phtm South Dakota www.state.sd.us/boa/Prop. Mgmt/propmgt.htm Tennessee www.state.tn.us/generalserv/ba04s/ Texas tfc.state.tx.us www.sugarlandtx.gov/online_auction Utah fleet.state.ut.us/ Vermont bgs.vermont.gov/business_services/surplus Virginia dgs.virginia.gov Washington www.washington.edu/admin/surplus www.des.wa.gov West Virginia www.state.wv.us/admin/purchase/surplus Wisconsin www.doa.state.wi.us/ Wyoming ai.state.wy.us/GeneralServices/index.asp
"The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months"
You mean, roughly coinciding with HRC's failure to mobilize her base, and dawning recognition that she wasn't simply going to ascend the throne as planned?
Rather than invent a giant Russian hacking cabal, it's simpler to recognize: - fake bullshittery news has been with us on the internet since...the internet. Election seasons in particular have always been rife with "did you hear" watercooler talk. - its far easier to blame "them" on the internet than to accept that "Liberalism Ascendant" wasn't perhaps as inevitable as some thought, and a really shitty candidate CAN still lose an "in-the-bag" election - not every story that HRC (note that all the 'false news' stories are one-sided; apparently nobody spread false tales about Trump? Really?) claims was fake was, ipso facto, fake. We seem to have quickly and conveniently moved on, for example, from what was obviously some serious seizure issues that have been hand-waved away as "fake news"
This means that the Russian banking system is about to crash, and Putin needs to get his cover story "hackers did it" out there better than Hillary did.
"Alot of folks just don't understand the frustration that the liberalists create by basically saying we can't say anything bad about anything. "
They should by now:
Nominee Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Party Republican Democratic Home state New York New York Running mate Mike Pence Tim Kaine Projected electoral vote 306 232
Because I've not seen a better single-sentence summary of why Trump won than your post. Thank you.
1) to say "well look how dangerous THOSE things are" and somehow suggest that therefore pot must be safer is a simple tu quoque fallacy. Same with criticizing the commercially-motivated studies by alcohol and tobacco against pot; simply because they have a reason to dislike pot DOESN'T INHERENTLY MEAN their facts are wrong...just that it's possible they're spun.
2) "Everyone knows pot is safer than alcohol, opioids and tobacco." Really? What I/know/ is that ANECDOTALLY (which we all know is useless in terms of determining policy) potheads seem to be less trouble than alcoholics. Smokers are mostly a danger to themselves, and opioids are strongly constrained by law so most recreational use is HIGHLY illegal. If you're talking about 'traffic deaths and domestic violence' etc from alcohol, well, that's not the substance, that's resulting behavior from WIDESPREAD overuse and acceptance - let's let pot get into widespread casual use for generations, and THEN compare those factors.
In a US where there is a broadly sweeping and growing generational consensus that government should: - provide all healthcare - protect everyone from any conceivable harm whether practical, realistic or not (from terrorists to pedophiles), - even from their OWN CHOICES - and at literally any expense...you're fooling yourself.
"Any government powerful enough to give the people all that they want is also powerful enough to take from the people all that they have."
Famously NOT said by T.Jefferson, but pretty damned good comment nonetheless.
They're not energy efficient, they're expensive (when you count the subsidies), they lead to excessive levels of pesticide, and amount to nothing more than a stealth subsidy of agriculture.
There wouldn't be an 'abundance' if EVERY KID IN THE WORLD knew how to code, would there?
Already, US coders are unhappy about the legions of immigrants (or simply foreign-seated coders) willing to do their jobs for 1/3 or less the salary. You think teaching every kid to code would improve that situation?
"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
...yes, I understand the entire point of the "fake news" claim is to blame THAT for Trump's victory (setting aside the entirely horrible candidate that routinely insulted half the electorate, approached the election as an entitlement, and never took her opponent seriously), but the fact is that 'fake internet news' has been a thing since the internet was.
And the reason it's a thing IS BECAUSE the 'real' news organizations have long since (for a number of reasons) lost any credibility whatsoever.
Has it "turned into" implies that it wasn't basically that from the start.
The idea that every kid should know how to code is stupid. The majority of people in the developed world, much less the REST of the world, can get on comfortably through their entire lives never knowing a line of code.
There's too many things people already need to know (that they generally don't) to waste time advancing such a narrow agenda.
..how will they (compulsorily) limit this to the DRIVER? Anything short of that is nothing more than window-dressing to make legislators feel they're "doing something".
As they say: "Such driving modes are already implemented within certain Android smartphones, including Samsung models, but they are not compulsory and are up to the users to activate."
If they're already in place, are they making ANY difference? I'd guess not: people who are conscientious enough to voluntarily use the feature, are probably already sensible enough to not be responding to FB if they're driving anyway.
I'm not going to argue that some Republicans aren't in the pocket of big business, certainly no moreso that Democrats are in the pocket of labor and trial lawyers. (shrug) We have a congress generally that - regardless of party or predilection - is venal, blindly tendentious, and frankly more than a little stupid.
I disagree that there "needs to be some sort of government agency" - we have PLENTY of government agencies under whose jurisdiction this COULD fall: FDA, Commerce, FTC, CPSC, Per the US Gov't itself: The FDA regulates products that are foods, drugs, cosmetics, or medical equipment. FTC: As a general rule of thumb, every other consumer commodity that doesnâ(TM)t fall under FDA regulations is regulated by the FTC. There, solved.
And before you claim "but...Republicans drain all the funding from these programs" - in a sense, yes. Republicans tend to try to take money out of government spending generally (save perhaps Defense - although GWB pre 9/11 had major plans for DoD downsizing. That's precisely why Rumsfeld got SecDef: he was a budget cutter) BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO HAVE EVERYTHING WE WANT. So yes, in the same sense your household might be cutting the breakfast cereal budget along with everything else because you're deeply in debt, Republicans regularly try to drain bloated and eternal programs.
I'll remind you, nevertheless, that something north of 53% of the US Fed budget goes to Health and Social Services, so if the Republicans are attacking non-defense programs, they're not winning... https://lh5.googleusercontent....
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, if you sit down with a company and say "I would like to work for you" and they say "OK we'll pay you $X for Y-work-done, but you get no benefits, etc" nobody's FORCING you to take that job, are they?
If you don't like it, decline the job and look elsewhere.
If you're desperate for work, then perhaps you HAVE to accept a shitty deal to get a job? Or, you should improve yourself and your skills to make yourself a more attractive candidate for a better position?
I don't really understand why there's this presumption that every job MUST be the perfect life-affirming career with 20 weeks child-leave, infinite sick days, and a complete package of benefits?
...we continue to talk about the HACK and who did it, not what the emails showed.
So you're perfectly OK with unelected personnel refusing to perform perfectly legal tasks assigned to them by the legally elected leadership of the US government?
Personally, I hope he stops their paychecks. Bureaucrats don't get to anticipatorily refuse lawful instructions from their employer because he *might * do something they disagree with later.
"And it's not just that "something changed", it's that a useful existing standard is being broken for no good reason."
So, yes, it IS in fact "something changed" and you're Mr Pogue's cute little white-knight. Adorable.
Maybe the fact that something existed for a while doesn't mean it is intrinsically worth preserving?
Hint: try the pgdwn key?
Or your mouse wheel?
Or clicking on the slidebar?
Or sliding the screen indicator on the slidebar?
Considering other web-systems have adopted the spacebar for their functions (ie stop/start video, etc) maybe it was a good time to abandon a method that wasn't all that widely used anyway?
I find the hardest thing to explain to old people is that there usually a multitude of ways to do the same thing on a computer, and not to get too upset or fixated on a single method.
I guess that's still true.
I'm a 50 year old man, btw. "Styopa" is Russian, short for (variously) Stepan. And the arg (in case you're doubting my age) was actually my quake (1) clan [arg!] which I was into when I started reading Slashdot...then they later changed their login format, so I lost the [ and ] and !.
I just find old people that bitch because something changes tiresome.
That article is idiotically stupid.
"For many online shops, the cost of a free shipment is either folded into the prices for items or funded by investors. "
Funded by INVESTORS? Seriously, how could a company operate more than about 15 minutes if its capital investment was being spent on SHIPPING.
It shouldn't be news to anyone: SHIPPING ISN'T ACTUALLY EVER FREE.
It's just that shipping costs don't increase proportionally to purchase prices.
Here's how it works when they say "if you buy more than $50 shipping is free"
Buy item for $10, of which $4 is profit. Costs about $8 to ship.
Buy FIVE of them for $50, $20 is profit. Shipping is only maybe $12. So if they throw in free shipping, sure, the retailer only makes $8 profit (instead of $20) but a) their sales quintuple (which is more of a metric companies are measured by), b) more importantly, they've generated goodwill with the customer, c) possibly gained a sale because the final perceived cost-per-item for the customer isn't $18, it's $10..
TiA: I work in logistics for a large manufacturer.
...Person in his second half-century complains that UI element he's comfortable with is no longer as universal as he thinks it should be, and complains angrily that he should never have to change?
Yeah, that's news.
In military slang, 'pogue' is a derogatory term for some REMF that has no clue how the world works in reality. That's about right.
1) I said nothing about Bush Jr. What does he even have to do with the conversation?
2) You understand that not everyone worships at the Holy Altar of Keynes, right? 'Broken Windows' is bullshit of the highest order, a perfect credo to justify politicians spending money on their pet projects.
3) If you think Fed policy isn't guided by the general policies who sits in the Oval Office, you're kidding yourself. You know who appoints the Fed, right?
When Trump talks about spending, it's a "binge".
But a Democrat president can spend like there's no tomorrow and it gets names like "stimulus spending" or "quantitative easing".
No double standard, certainly.
Haven't the Democrats told us since 2008 that the ONLY way out of a recession is to spend money the government doesn't have?
Is it ironic or telling that a story about a business location that allows you to take content without stopping at a register is behind a paywall?
...but if they sell them, http://www.eyeflare.com/articl...
Where to buy TSA confiscated items for sale:
US state Website address
Alabama www.adeca.alabama.gov
Alaska www.publicsurplus.com/
Arizona www.azdoa.gov/agencies/msd/surplus_property/public_auctions.asp
Arkansas www.arstatesurplus.com
California http://www.dgs.ca.gov/ofam/hom...
Colorado www.cijvp.com
Connecticut das.ct.gov
Delaware www.state.de.us/dss/surplus/index.shtml
District of Columbia app.ocp.dc.gov/RUI/information/ppd/ppd_main.asp
Florida dms.myflorida.com/dms2/business_operations/
Georgia surplusproperty.doas.georgia.gov - Online auction sales
Hawaii auction.ehawaii.gov
Idaho fsp.idaho.gov/
Illinois ibid.illinois.gov
Indiana www.state.in.us/idoa/surplus/index.html
Iowa www.iaprisonind.com
das.gse.iowa.gov
Kansas da.state.ks.us/surplus/default.htm
Kentucky finance.ky.gov
Louisiana doa.louisiana.gov/lpaa/auction.htm
Maine www.maine.gov/bgs/centralserv/surplus/
Maryland www.dgs.maryland.gov
Massachusetts www.mass.gov/portal/
Michigan www.michigan.gov/dmb/
Minnesota www.fss.state.mn.us/auction.htm
Mississippi www.dfa.state.ms.us/Offices/SurProp/SurProp.htm
Missouri www.oa.mo.gov/purch/surplus.html
Montana gsd.mt.gov/local/publicauctions.asp
Nebraska www.corrections.state.ne.us/federal_surplus/index.html
www.das.state.ne.us/materiel/surplus/surplus.htm
Nevada purchasing.state.nv.us/property/auction.htm
www.das.state.ne.us/materiel/surplus/surplus.htm
purchasing.state.nv.us/property/vehicle.htm
New Jersey www.state.nj.us/treasury/dss
New Mexico www.generalservices.state.nm.us/transportationservices/publicstorefront
New York www.ogs.state.ny.us/supportServices/fedSurplus
www.ogs.state.ny.us/supportServices/stateSurplus
North Carolina www.surpluspropertydivision.com/
www.ncstatesurplus.com/ssp/public/ssphomepage/ssp.htm
North Dakota www.nd.gov/surplus/
Ohio www.das.ohio.gov
Oklahoma www.ok.gov/DCS/State_Surplus/index.html
Oregon oregonsurplus.com
surplus.oregonstate.edu
Pennsylvania www.dgs.state.pa.us/surp_prop/site/default.asp
Puerto Rico No website
South Carolina www.ogs.state.sc.us/OGS-disposable-index.phtm
South Dakota www.state.sd.us/boa/Prop. Mgmt/propmgt.htm
Tennessee www.state.tn.us/generalserv/ba04s/
Texas tfc.state.tx.us
www.sugarlandtx.gov/online_auction
Utah fleet.state.ut.us/
Vermont bgs.vermont.gov/business_services/surplus
Virginia dgs.virginia.gov
Washington www.washington.edu/admin/surplus
www.des.wa.gov
West Virginia www.state.wv.us/admin/purchase/surplus
Wisconsin www.doa.state.wi.us/
Wyoming ai.state.wy.us/GeneralServices/index.asp
"The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months"
You mean, roughly coinciding with HRC's failure to mobilize her base, and dawning recognition that she wasn't simply going to ascend the throne as planned?
Rather than invent a giant Russian hacking cabal, it's simpler to recognize:
- fake bullshittery news has been with us on the internet since...the internet. Election seasons in particular have always been rife with "did you hear" watercooler talk.
- its far easier to blame "them" on the internet than to accept that "Liberalism Ascendant" wasn't perhaps as inevitable as some thought, and a really shitty candidate CAN still lose an "in-the-bag" election
- not every story that HRC (note that all the 'false news' stories are one-sided; apparently nobody spread false tales about Trump? Really?) claims was fake was, ipso facto, fake. We seem to have quickly and conveniently moved on, for example, from what was obviously some serious seizure issues that have been hand-waved away as "fake news"
This means that the Russian banking system is about to crash, and Putin needs to get his cover story "hackers did it" out there better than Hillary did.
Sure he's pretty smart in a specific field but who gives a s*** what he says about Automation and AI?
He's no more an expert in those subjects than pretty much any other Joe on the street.
Just sayin.
Additional mandatory text to let me post.
"Alot of folks just don't understand the frustration that the liberalists create by basically saying we can't say anything bad about anything. "
They should by now:
Nominee Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Party Republican Democratic
Home state New York New York
Running mate Mike Pence Tim Kaine
Projected electoral vote 306 232
Because I've not seen a better single-sentence summary of why Trump won than your post. Thank you.
...and you're part of the problem.
1) to say "well look how dangerous THOSE things are" and somehow suggest that therefore pot must be safer is a simple tu quoque fallacy. Same with criticizing the commercially-motivated studies by alcohol and tobacco against pot; simply because they have a reason to dislike pot DOESN'T INHERENTLY MEAN their facts are wrong...just that it's possible they're spun.
2) "Everyone knows pot is safer than alcohol, opioids and tobacco." /know/ is that ANECDOTALLY (which we all know is useless in terms of determining policy) potheads seem to be less trouble than alcoholics. Smokers are mostly a danger to themselves, and opioids are strongly constrained by law so most recreational use is HIGHLY illegal.
Really? What I
If you're talking about 'traffic deaths and domestic violence' etc from alcohol, well, that's not the substance, that's resulting behavior from WIDESPREAD overuse and acceptance - let's let pot get into widespread casual use for generations, and THEN compare those factors.
In a US where there is a broadly sweeping and growing generational consensus that government should: ...you're fooling yourself.
- provide all healthcare
- protect everyone from any conceivable harm whether practical, realistic or not (from terrorists to pedophiles), - even from their OWN CHOICES - and at literally any expense
"Any government powerful enough to give the people all that they want is also powerful enough to take from the people all that they have."
Famously NOT said by T.Jefferson, but pretty damned good comment nonetheless.
They're not energy efficient, they're expensive (when you count the subsidies), they lead to excessive levels of pesticide, and amount to nothing more than a stealth subsidy of agriculture.
Brilliant policy, should do more.
There wouldn't be an 'abundance' if EVERY KID IN THE WORLD knew how to code, would there?
Already, US coders are unhappy about the legions of immigrants (or simply foreign-seated coders) willing to do their jobs for 1/3 or less the salary. You think teaching every kid to code would improve that situation?
"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
(A Man For All Seasons, 1966)
...yes, I understand the entire point of the "fake news" claim is to blame THAT for Trump's victory (setting aside the entirely horrible candidate that routinely insulted half the electorate, approached the election as an entitlement, and never took her opponent seriously), but the fact is that 'fake internet news' has been a thing since the internet was.
And the reason it's a thing IS BECAUSE the 'real' news organizations have long since (for a number of reasons) lost any credibility whatsoever.
Has it "turned into" implies that it wasn't basically that from the start.
The idea that every kid should know how to code is stupid. The majority of people in the developed world, much less the REST of the world, can get on comfortably through their entire lives never knowing a line of code.
There's too many things people already need to know (that they generally don't) to waste time advancing such a narrow agenda.
..how will they (compulsorily) limit this to the DRIVER? Anything short of that is nothing more than window-dressing to make legislators feel they're "doing something".
As they say: "Such driving modes are already implemented within certain Android smartphones, including Samsung models, but they are not compulsory and are up to the users to activate."
If they're already in place, are they making ANY difference? I'd guess not: people who are conscientious enough to voluntarily use the feature, are probably already sensible enough to not be responding to FB if they're driving anyway.
I'm not going to argue that some Republicans aren't in the pocket of big business, certainly no moreso that Democrats are in the pocket of labor and trial lawyers. (shrug) We have a congress generally that - regardless of party or predilection - is venal, blindly tendentious, and frankly more than a little stupid.
I disagree that there "needs to be some sort of government agency" - we have PLENTY of government agencies under whose jurisdiction this COULD fall: FDA, Commerce, FTC, CPSC,
Per the US Gov't itself:
The FDA regulates products that are foods, drugs, cosmetics, or medical equipment.
FTC: As a general rule of thumb, every other consumer commodity that doesnâ(TM)t fall under FDA regulations is regulated by the FTC.
There, solved.
And before you claim "but...Republicans drain all the funding from these programs" - in a sense, yes. Republicans tend to try to take money out of government spending generally (save perhaps Defense - although GWB pre 9/11 had major plans for DoD downsizing. That's precisely why Rumsfeld got SecDef: he was a budget cutter) BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO HAVE EVERYTHING WE WANT. So yes, in the same sense your household might be cutting the breakfast cereal budget along with everything else because you're deeply in debt, Republicans regularly try to drain bloated and eternal programs.
I'll remind you, nevertheless, that something north of 53% of the US Fed budget goes to Health and Social Services, so if the Republicans are attacking non-defense programs, they're not winning...
https://lh5.googleusercontent....