>> filter all ads with the notion of there never having been a worthwhile ad to watch
It's funny you should say that. I haven't had cable tv for about 3+ years, and I don't watch tv at all (unless I'm some place where there's a tv that's on all the time). One thing I've noticed is that more than half of the time when someone asks if I have seen something on TV, it's an ad they're talking about, not an actual show.
The parent is modded "Funny" but I'd say it's more insightful than funny. Kids are naturally curious, and if that curiosity is stifled by a parentally imposed monastic lifestyle, it will more than likely manifest itself in deviant ways as the child grows up. I would say that a child has the right (as a human being) to explore the world and the things in it; a parent can have a profound effect by merely steering the child's attention TOWARD things, not away from things.
I seriously question a parent's motives and sanity who would subject their child to such a shut-in world.
I hope this turns out well for those workers. I don't have a huge amount of contracting experience, but I had one contract with a clear project where I played a clear role and where there was a clear completion to the project. At another contract, I had no specific role other than that of an employee; so, I worked as an employee, doing numerous things and even going above and beyond my duties to make overtures at getting hired "for real." Needless to say when I got a letter saying that my contract was to be terminated in 3 months, I felt a bit slighted.
Seems to me that companies should use contractors for SPECIFIC PROJECTS, not as a way to cheaply hire what amount to regular employees. I believe the US federal government already works under this type of guideline... It only makes sense. A win for the HP employees would be a win for a much-needed new type of information labor movement.
Yep, exactly; that's what I meant by "corporate-funded" schools. Wait till your kid has a corporate-sponsored "Trusted Computing" class and points out that you've broken the law by copying your favorite digital DRMed song to CD and lending it to your friend! Mmmmm, ad-supported curriculum.
Here's what NCLB really is. Theoretically, kids in bad schools (i.e. ones where they are physically in danger) can take vouchers and go elsewhere.
Teachers in affluent schools hate it because of the "ghetto" kids who would be brought in through the program. Teachers in poor schools hate it because they will lose students and feel threatened that they will become obsolete. They realize that the equalization of funding between rich and poor communities as a goal of NCLB is a myth. If the NCLB plan actually *did* work, it would merely force these underfunded "bad" schools out of existence. Or make way for corporate-funded learning institutions. Or any number of bad things.
How has he prevented access to the originals? Do you own the original Star Wars? Quit bitching. If not, get on eBay and buy it.
Other than that, just because you and aparently millions of others have deified Star Wars doesn't give you diddly squat as far as any kind of right or privelege to decide whether or not George Lucas is doing the right thing.
"Renig on their social contract"?? What contract is that? Lucas is a dude who created a beloved work, and who wants to "finish" it in the way that he as an artist envisioned it. That "vision" is his alone. You and all of these other nay-saying fans can bitch all you want, but because you're not the ones with the vision, you *really* have no entitlement to decide anything at all about these films.
I can't take it anymore. Stop whining. Stop blowing these issues out of proportion. George Lucas doesn't owe anybody anything. He's already payed you by making a series of great epic films.
Good points taking into consideration things that I didn't. IMHO, the biggest thing that seperates us from times past is the ubiquity of connectedness of the entire world combined with the plummeting prices of being able to partake in the connectedness. IOW, communication among the masses. This is only valuable if it is free and unfettered.
Having free and unfettered communication among the population of the world, though, is threatening to those in power more so than ever before. Take the John Gilmore thing. Because one guy stood up and started asking questions, and because of the internet, the issue is now global, and there's (currently) no way for anyone to sweep it under the rug. The US now has to, in some way, become accountable for secret laws, which are tactics normally reserved for more... questionable... types of government.
IMHO, this satellite/cable question is one fight removed from an internet question. And these issues are on a much larger scale than a book-banning, or even a communist witch hunt.
The point is that we're beginning to slide down a slippery slope where the constitution is taking a backseat to the whims of elitist power-hungry a-holes who want to tell you what is and isn't good for you. The reason that *some* people get upset is because we're moving away from the freedom that we were founded on, and that forces us to ask ourselves what (if anything) we can do to get back on the right track as a nation.
It's also disturbing that a proposed law like this would get ANY support at all, let alone the issue of its constitutionality. And, your theory that if it passed it "would be repealed as unconstitutional" is only valid if someone can challenge it in court (and most likely with a case like this all the way to the supreme court), which is too costly for most entities that this law would affect. Compliance with this type of fascist law is easier than fighting it.
The most American thing of all is to be able to stand up and demand that the government not pull shit like this.
"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship."
First of all, holy contradictions Batman!
Second of all, the standard of decency is LOCAL. Or, it's supposed to be. Meaning that there is not, nor should there ever be, a national standard of decency for any form of broadcast media. To have one would amount to blatant federal government-sponsored censorship (as opposed to the subtle censorship we already enjoy).
Taking away the ability for CITIZENS to decide LOCAL standards of decency is a stick in the eye of states' rights, to say the least, and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
We're really screwed here in the US if we don't do something. It's hard to believe that people can't get past the "Howard Stern"-ness of this issue and see that this is a bad direction to go. This is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. Free speech won't even have a tax (as it does with the $500,000 fine bill); it will be plain illegal.
I'm the first one to admit that I really don't care about blogs. However, this "internet is shit" thing seems to be some kind of ignorant manifesto of a dejected librarian or something. Cut me a break. I could stomach it only by thinking what that site really means is "the commercial internet is shit" and, even then, it's exaggerated.
IMHO, the bottom line of the Web is that it's an electronic representation of how we socialize as human beings, at a global scale, that is cheap enough to reach into corners of the world that most people didn't know existed. This peaks my "sense of wonder" (which according to "the internet is shit" is something we've lost as a society or something).
The argument you make is from some kind of old-fashioned snobbery stemming from the narcissistic point of view that dimisses other people's interests as mundane. Thus, you have missed the entire shift in the way the human race communicates, which is a shame.
The ubiquity of blogs has surprised me because of my own laziness when it comes to finding interesting bloggers. Whether or not there's a whole "industry" to be made by blogging is, in my non-business-saavy option, doubtful. But, like discussion boards, blogs are perfect for niche interests and are here to stay. Anyway, if the "internet is shit," why waste your time posting to slashdot?
I agree. It's our culture of fear that underlies crazy stuff like this. It's also what keeps the "lower classes" at each other's throats, and what makes it so easy to call for bans on things like video games.
The media are a huge part of that; it's only a piece of the puzzle, though. The thing is that the attitude of fear is everywhere you look. As Americans, now more than ever we need to really search ourselves to understand where these attitudes come from, because these xenophobic tendencies prevent us from enjoying our freedoms. As parents, we need to be open to questions from our children, and open to giving thoughtful and honest answers that we can live with having passed on.
And most of all as parents, we need to learn how to say NO; I think that if there is not some kind of level of discomfort in your parenting (from not giving in to your child's every whim), then you are trying too hard to be a "friend," and that sucks. Kids need to know limits. So I say, until your kid is 18, you've got every right to control the games they play, the TV they watch, and who they befriend.
It's still illegal for truck drivers to drive drunk. Maybe since they're experts, it should be okay for them? Other than stigma, what's the difference between chemical impairment and distractive impairment/attention impairment (what would you call it?)?
Ha, here's a new one for slashdot. IANATD: I am not a truck driver. But I surmise from what I know that they use their CBs to speak about things that directly affect their driving, which is their job (i.e. traffic up ahead, whatever); or, to keep themselves awake on a long haul (i.e. social interaction to keep their brains from shutting off). So, their CB contributes, rather than detracts from, the over all safety of their driving.
But, if my argument is mere speculation, you can't possibly argue with the fact that, because driving is a truck driver's career, s/he would hardly be frivolous about doing anything that could end it. IOW, s/he has more of a conscious (well, hopefully anyway) stake in driving better than you or I.
So, if we all had the CDL training, you may be correct in that we'd be better drivers. It might even make some people think twice about driving, which would probably be a Good Thing anyway. Still, and this gets to the heart of my opinion on this whole cell phone phenomenon: Unless being on call means that being able to answer your call immediately is a matter of life and death, I simply can't wrap myself around the ideas that 1) there is a good excuse for not waiting until you've reached your destination to take a call, or 2) that it's any more a violation of anyone's rights to make driving and talking illegal than it is drinking and driving.
Ah, now we've gotten somewhere. You're a cell-phone addict. Get some help, man! Go to rehab! Go to support meetings!;)
I think it's rediculous to limit what somebody (in particular, myself) is allowed to do because of how it affects a subset of the population
To a point a agree with that sentiment, but again, in this case what you personally may be good at presents a danger to most other people. I was laughing because I was thinking of equating this to "stunt driving" or something, but that would be too extreme. At any rate, I don't want all of these people "practicing" their talking and driving while I'm on the road, trying to get home to my kid.
I know people who drive drunk without a second thought, and they're either really lucky or a very skillful drivers for never getting into trouble. It's probably a little of both luck and skill; I think that the only thing it would take to tap the potential of that danger is something that requires an unusually quick reaction time; unexpectedly stopped vehicle just over a hill, person running across the street up around the curve. And as much as I love beer, I agree 110% with the illegality of driving while intoxicated.
I think the football comparison is perfect in an analogous sense: Though scientifically it may involve different brain processes, it is situationally similar enough to prove the point. The point being that given the tasks of both holding any kind of telephone conversion and something else of substantive content (something you have to give more than reflexive thought to), you have to see-saw your attention back and forth between the two. <br><br> Therefore, in the driving situation, as your attention lowers to answer a conversation, your ability to react to situations in traffic is decreased.
Listening to somebody talking to you on the phone is no more distracting than listening to talk radio.
Stats please? I'm only going by the scientific study cited in TFA. Again, why this seemingly baseless defense of cell phones? Just as a subjective comment on this talk radio thing, all I-Am-Not-A... blah blah aside, I would assume that two-way communication where you have to comprehend what someone says, then formulate a response based on any number of criteria--such as during a cell phone conversation--is much more distracting than a radio talking at you, when you have no particular vested interest in what they're saying since you don't have to respond.
Using other drivers actions as an example will teach new drivers how to be worse drivers, not better.
My point was more time on the road = more experience = better prepared to face various situations. But, I would take issue with the generalization that it would make someone a *worse* driver. In general, someone with very little experience (such as a young driver) can at least see some general driving habits that they can learn from. Think about odd local traffic spots, like a 5-point intersection, or whatever; if you've never driven in the area before, it helps to watch how others approach it.
Pulling over causes more traffic problems than it prevents.
I'll take your word for it. Quite honestly, I only said that instead of plain old TURN THE PHONE OFF until you're where you're going. Clearly "prohibition" of cellphone when driving is not taking away any rights. After all, it isn't even a "right" to drive: It's a privilege. Using poor judgment by holding a telephone conversation when driving is cause to have that privilege taken away, IMHO.
While it is more distracting, it's not as onerous a task as you're making it out to be.
I don't get it. You offer up what appears to be some kind of homespun wisdom about doing two things at once to refute an actual scientific study? Why the need to refute this? Do you talk and drive? If so, you may be a little dillusional about your own abilities to do so safely. Please, if you need to talk, pull over.
Taking the cell phones away from drivers is a symptom fix. We should attack the root of the problem.
I think you're off topic a little bit. Okay, some people are bad drivers, but experience is the best teacher when it comes to driving. OTOH, talking on a cell phone necessarily splits your attention between a conversation and driving.
It's easy to "multitask" at your desk or in a restaurant, because there aren't fatal consequences if you let your attention on your iced latte lapse for a second while you report into the office on your cell. If you let your attention lapse for a split second while driving, you could kill someone.
To continue with the parallel of drunk driving, you need to examine yourself if you just HAVE to have that 5th beer before you drive home, or if you just HAVE to have that conversation at the exact moment that you're on a busy highway. PLAN AHEAD. Stop being so self-important that you put everyone at risk. PULL OVER if what you need to say is so important that it can't wait until you're in a safe place to call from.
Speaking only to the Internet/Web portion of this issue, anyone can change anything on the web at any time. So any URL you link to today could change tomorrow into an illegally obtained, copyrighted thing; or even kiddie porn. Imagine a year from now you are all of a sudden brought up on child pornography charges because you thought you were linking to teletubbies or something!
So, this makes it a huge liability to link to ANYTHING ANYWHERE... just when you thought the world was shrinking.
I happen to lean toward gun ownership rights, personally. So I agree with your sentiment that guns don't kill people; people kill people. I mainly want to illustrate the very tangled web we can begin to weave as we legislate beyond the core "morality" of a civilized society and begin to erode freedoms that by some standards define a fulfilling life.
I think my dad's favorite way to sum up his personal philosophy--"LTFA" (Leave me The Fuck Alone)-- is a very good rule of thumb for what sensible legislation is. It's kind of funny, but has more depth to it than you might think at first glance.
There are ways other than sex to get these diseases, but can we be honest enough to admit that they primarily spread so rapidly because of mass unprotected sex amongst multiple partners?
One of the other posters did a decent job of speaking to most of these points, but with this particular one: Isn't the whole idea of marriage "monogamy"? Therefore, wouldn't allowing gay marriage lessen all of the "mass unprotected sex amongst multiple partners"?
I can see you foaming at the mouth, ready to say "All those hedonistic homos won't let marriage stop them from _____" (insert perversions here). That is called bigotry. I, too, never really equated gay rights with civil rights until I really thought about this one particular issue, same-sex marriage.
You have the right to your opinions, and you can certainly choose not to have ______ (insert social group here) as your friends. But what our consitution and the very spirit of our country say is that you can't legislate or enforce such ideals on others. And IMHO, this gives us a much clearer path to leading our consciousness to love and peace than your hatred of that of which you fear because you do not understand.
The concepts of morality and law are married, and it would be useless to argue otherwise. In order for a civilized society to function, in which in general people can peacefully coexist, there are some basic moral principles that we all agree upon; "social contract," etc. Stuff like "murder is illegal," or "don't steal other people's property."
Where the word "morality" becomes an issue is when it is applied to victimless circumstances, such as someone watching porn in the privacy of his home. Or someone smoking a joint. "Morality," contrary to what the Radical Right wants you to think, is NOT a concept to be monopolized by White Conservative Christians. That is at the crux of where this nation is becoming divided.
Which is more "wrong": A man sucking another man's ween, or a man slaughtering 10 children with a legally obtained firearm?
I keep thinking of Toys, that Robin Williams movie, where this guy takes over a toy factory, and begins to manufacture military machines that will be remotely piloted by brainwashed children who think they're playing video games.
Slashdot Mirror
>> filter all ads with the notion of there never having been a worthwhile ad to watch
It's funny you should say that. I haven't had cable tv for about 3+ years, and I don't watch tv at all (unless I'm some place where there's a tv that's on all the time). One thing I've noticed is that more than half of the time when someone asks if I have seen something on TV, it's an ad they're talking about, not an actual show.
The parent is modded "Funny" but I'd say it's more insightful than funny. Kids are naturally curious, and if that curiosity is stifled by a parentally imposed monastic lifestyle, it will more than likely manifest itself in deviant ways as the child grows up. I would say that a child has the right (as a human being) to explore the world and the things in it; a parent can have a profound effect by merely steering the child's attention TOWARD things, not away from things.
I seriously question a parent's motives and sanity who would subject their child to such a shut-in world.
I hope this turns out well for those workers. I don't have a huge amount of contracting experience, but I had one contract with a clear project where I played a clear role and where there was a clear completion to the project. At another contract, I had no specific role other than that of an employee; so, I worked as an employee, doing numerous things and even going above and beyond my duties to make overtures at getting hired "for real." Needless to say when I got a letter saying that my contract was to be terminated in 3 months, I felt a bit slighted.
Seems to me that companies should use contractors for SPECIFIC PROJECTS, not as a way to cheaply hire what amount to regular employees. I believe the US federal government already works under this type of guideline... It only makes sense. A win for the HP employees would be a win for a much-needed new type of information labor movement.
Yep, exactly; that's what I meant by "corporate-funded" schools. Wait till your kid has a corporate-sponsored "Trusted Computing" class and points out that you've broken the law by copying your favorite digital DRMed song to CD and lending it to your friend! Mmmmm, ad-supported curriculum.
Here's what NCLB really is. Theoretically, kids in bad schools (i.e. ones where they are physically in danger) can take vouchers and go elsewhere. Teachers in affluent schools hate it because of the "ghetto" kids who would be brought in through the program. Teachers in poor schools hate it because they will lose students and feel threatened that they will become obsolete. They realize that the equalization of funding between rich and poor communities as a goal of NCLB is a myth. If the NCLB plan actually *did* work, it would merely force these underfunded "bad" schools out of existence. Or make way for corporate-funded learning institutions. Or any number of bad things.
How has he prevented access to the originals? Do you own the original Star Wars? Quit bitching. If not, get on eBay and buy it.
Other than that, just because you and aparently millions of others have deified Star Wars doesn't give you diddly squat as far as any kind of right or privelege to decide whether or not George Lucas is doing the right thing.
"Renig on their social contract"?? What contract is that? Lucas is a dude who created a beloved work, and who wants to "finish" it in the way that he as an artist envisioned it. That "vision" is his alone. You and all of these other nay-saying fans can bitch all you want, but because you're not the ones with the vision, you *really* have no entitlement to decide anything at all about these films.
I can't take it anymore. Stop whining. Stop blowing these issues out of proportion. George Lucas doesn't owe anybody anything. He's already payed you by making a series of great epic films.
is the air through which we speak.
Good points taking into consideration things that I didn't. IMHO, the biggest thing that seperates us from times past is the ubiquity of connectedness of the entire world combined with the plummeting prices of being able to partake in the connectedness. IOW, communication among the masses. This is only valuable if it is free and unfettered.
Having free and unfettered communication among the population of the world, though, is threatening to those in power more so than ever before. Take the John Gilmore thing. Because one guy stood up and started asking questions, and because of the internet, the issue is now global, and there's (currently) no way for anyone to sweep it under the rug. The US now has to, in some way, become accountable for secret laws, which are tactics normally reserved for more... questionable... types of government.
IMHO, this satellite/cable question is one fight removed from an internet question. And these issues are on a much larger scale than a book-banning, or even a communist witch hunt.
The point is that we're beginning to slide down a slippery slope where the constitution is taking a backseat to the whims of elitist power-hungry a-holes who want to tell you what is and isn't good for you. The reason that *some* people get upset is because we're moving away from the freedom that we were founded on, and that forces us to ask ourselves what (if anything) we can do to get back on the right track as a nation.
It's also disturbing that a proposed law like this would get ANY support at all, let alone the issue of its constitutionality. And, your theory that if it passed it "would be repealed as unconstitutional" is only valid if someone can challenge it in court (and most likely with a case like this all the way to the supreme court), which is too costly for most entities that this law would affect. Compliance with this type of fascist law is easier than fighting it.
The most American thing of all is to be able to stand up and demand that the government not pull shit like this.
First of all, holy contradictions Batman!
Second of all, the standard of decency is LOCAL. Or, it's supposed to be. Meaning that there is not, nor should there ever be, a national standard of decency for any form of broadcast media. To have one would amount to blatant federal government-sponsored censorship (as opposed to the subtle censorship we already enjoy).
Taking away the ability for CITIZENS to decide LOCAL standards of decency is a stick in the eye of states' rights, to say the least, and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
We're really screwed here in the US if we don't do something. It's hard to believe that people can't get past the "Howard Stern"-ness of this issue and see that this is a bad direction to go. This is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. Free speech won't even have a tax (as it does with the $500,000 fine bill); it will be plain illegal.
I'm the first one to admit that I really don't care about blogs. However, this "internet is shit" thing seems to be some kind of ignorant manifesto of a dejected librarian or something. Cut me a break. I could stomach it only by thinking what that site really means is "the commercial internet is shit" and, even then, it's exaggerated.
IMHO, the bottom line of the Web is that it's an electronic representation of how we socialize as human beings, at a global scale, that is cheap enough to reach into corners of the world that most people didn't know existed. This peaks my "sense of wonder" (which according to "the internet is shit" is something we've lost as a society or something).
The argument you make is from some kind of old-fashioned snobbery stemming from the narcissistic point of view that dimisses other people's interests as mundane. Thus, you have missed the entire shift in the way the human race communicates, which is a shame.
The ubiquity of blogs has surprised me because of my own laziness when it comes to finding interesting bloggers. Whether or not there's a whole "industry" to be made by blogging is, in my non-business-saavy option, doubtful. But, like discussion boards, blogs are perfect for niche interests and are here to stay. Anyway, if the "internet is shit," why waste your time posting to slashdot?
I agree. It's our culture of fear that underlies crazy stuff like this. It's also what keeps the "lower classes" at each other's throats, and what makes it so easy to call for bans on things like video games.
The media are a huge part of that; it's only a piece of the puzzle, though. The thing is that the attitude of fear is everywhere you look. As Americans, now more than ever we need to really search ourselves to understand where these attitudes come from, because these xenophobic tendencies prevent us from enjoying our freedoms. As parents, we need to be open to questions from our children, and open to giving thoughtful and honest answers that we can live with having passed on.
And most of all as parents, we need to learn how to say NO; I think that if there is not some kind of level of discomfort in your parenting (from not giving in to your child's every whim), then you are trying too hard to be a "friend," and that sucks. Kids need to know limits. So I say, until your kid is 18, you've got every right to control the games they play, the TV they watch, and who they befriend.
Where are my 4-assed monkeys?
Don't shit where you eat.
It's still illegal for truck drivers to drive drunk. Maybe since they're experts, it should be okay for them? Other than stigma, what's the difference between chemical impairment and distractive impairment/attention impairment (what would you call it?)?
Ha, here's a new one for slashdot. IANATD: I am not a truck driver. But I surmise from what I know that they use their CBs to speak about things that directly affect their driving, which is their job (i.e. traffic up ahead, whatever); or, to keep themselves awake on a long haul (i.e. social interaction to keep their brains from shutting off). So, their CB contributes, rather than detracts from, the over all safety of their driving.
But, if my argument is mere speculation, you can't possibly argue with the fact that, because driving is a truck driver's career, s/he would hardly be frivolous about doing anything that could end it. IOW, s/he has more of a conscious (well, hopefully anyway) stake in driving better than you or I.
So, if we all had the CDL training, you may be correct in that we'd be better drivers. It might even make some people think twice about driving, which would probably be a Good Thing anyway. Still, and this gets to the heart of my opinion on this whole cell phone phenomenon: Unless being on call means that being able to answer your call immediately is a matter of life and death, I simply can't wrap myself around the ideas that 1) there is a good excuse for not waiting until you've reached your destination to take a call, or 2) that it's any more a violation of anyone's rights to make driving and talking illegal than it is drinking and driving.
Ah, now we've gotten somewhere. You're a cell-phone addict. Get some help, man! Go to rehab! Go to support meetings! ;)
I think it's rediculous to limit what somebody (in particular, myself) is allowed to do because of how it affects a subset of the population
To a point a agree with that sentiment, but again, in this case what you personally may be good at presents a danger to most other people. I was laughing because I was thinking of equating this to "stunt driving" or something, but that would be too extreme. At any rate, I don't want all of these people "practicing" their talking and driving while I'm on the road, trying to get home to my kid.
I know people who drive drunk without a second thought, and they're either really lucky or a very skillful drivers for never getting into trouble. It's probably a little of both luck and skill; I think that the only thing it would take to tap the potential of that danger is something that requires an unusually quick reaction time; unexpectedly stopped vehicle just over a hill, person running across the street up around the curve. And as much as I love beer, I agree 110% with the illegality of driving while intoxicated.
I think the football comparison is perfect in an analogous sense: Though scientifically it may involve different brain processes, it is situationally similar enough to prove the point. The point being that given the tasks of both holding any kind of telephone conversion and something else of substantive content (something you have to give more than reflexive thought to), you have to see-saw your attention back and forth between the two.
<br><br>
Therefore, in the driving situation, as your attention lowers to answer a conversation, your ability to react to situations in traffic is decreased.
Listening to somebody talking to you on the phone is no more distracting than listening to talk radio.
Stats please? I'm only going by the scientific study cited in TFA. Again, why this seemingly baseless defense of cell phones? Just as a subjective comment on this talk radio thing, all I-Am-Not-A... blah blah aside, I would assume that two-way communication where you have to comprehend what someone says, then formulate a response based on any number of criteria--such as during a cell phone conversation--is much more distracting than a radio talking at you, when you have no particular vested interest in what they're saying since you don't have to respond.
Using other drivers actions as an example will teach new drivers how to be worse drivers, not better.
My point was more time on the road = more experience = better prepared to face various situations. But, I would take issue with the generalization that it would make someone a *worse* driver. In general, someone with very little experience (such as a young driver) can at least see some general driving habits that they can learn from. Think about odd local traffic spots, like a 5-point intersection, or whatever; if you've never driven in the area before, it helps to watch how others approach it.
Pulling over causes more traffic problems than it prevents.
I'll take your word for it. Quite honestly, I only said that instead of plain old TURN THE PHONE OFF until you're where you're going. Clearly "prohibition" of cellphone when driving is not taking away any rights. After all, it isn't even a "right" to drive: It's a privilege. Using poor judgment by holding a telephone conversation when driving is cause to have that privilege taken away, IMHO.
While it is more distracting, it's not as onerous a task as you're making it out to be.
I don't get it. You offer up what appears to be some kind of homespun wisdom about doing two things at once to refute an actual scientific study? Why the need to refute this? Do you talk and drive? If so, you may be a little dillusional about your own abilities to do so safely. Please, if you need to talk, pull over.
Taking the cell phones away from drivers is a symptom fix. We should attack the root of the problem.
I think you're off topic a little bit. Okay, some people are bad drivers, but experience is the best teacher when it comes to driving. OTOH, talking on a cell phone necessarily splits your attention between a conversation and driving.
It's easy to "multitask" at your desk or in a restaurant, because there aren't fatal consequences if you let your attention on your iced latte lapse for a second while you report into the office on your cell. If you let your attention lapse for a split second while driving, you could kill someone.
To continue with the parallel of drunk driving, you need to examine yourself if you just HAVE to have that 5th beer before you drive home, or if you just HAVE to have that conversation at the exact moment that you're on a busy highway. PLAN AHEAD. Stop being so self-important that you put everyone at risk. PULL OVER if what you need to say is so important that it can't wait until you're in a safe place to call from.
Speaking only to the Internet/Web portion of this issue, anyone can change anything on the web at any time. So any URL you link to today could change tomorrow into an illegally obtained, copyrighted thing; or even kiddie porn. Imagine a year from now you are all of a sudden brought up on child pornography charges because you thought you were linking to teletubbies or something!
So, this makes it a huge liability to link to ANYTHING ANYWHERE... just when you thought the world was shrinking.
I happen to lean toward gun ownership rights, personally. So I agree with your sentiment that guns don't kill people; people kill people. I mainly want to illustrate the very tangled web we can begin to weave as we legislate beyond the core "morality" of a civilized society and begin to erode freedoms that by some standards define a fulfilling life.
I think my dad's favorite way to sum up his personal philosophy--"LTFA" (Leave me The Fuck Alone)-- is a very good rule of thumb for what sensible legislation is. It's kind of funny, but has more depth to it than you might think at first glance.
There are ways other than sex to get these diseases, but can we be honest enough to admit that they primarily spread so rapidly because of mass unprotected sex amongst multiple partners?
One of the other posters did a decent job of speaking to most of these points, but with this particular one: Isn't the whole idea of marriage "monogamy"? Therefore, wouldn't allowing gay marriage lessen all of the "mass unprotected sex amongst multiple partners"?
I can see you foaming at the mouth, ready to say "All those hedonistic homos won't let marriage stop them from _____" (insert perversions here). That is called bigotry. I, too, never really equated gay rights with civil rights until I really thought about this one particular issue, same-sex marriage.
You have the right to your opinions, and you can certainly choose not to have ______ (insert social group here) as your friends. But what our consitution and the very spirit of our country say is that you can't legislate or enforce such ideals on others. And IMHO, this gives us a much clearer path to leading our consciousness to love and peace than your hatred of that of which you fear because you do not understand.
The concepts of morality and law are married, and it would be useless to argue otherwise. In order for a civilized society to function, in which in general people can peacefully coexist, there are some basic moral principles that we all agree upon; "social contract," etc. Stuff like "murder is illegal," or "don't steal other people's property."
Where the word "morality" becomes an issue is when it is applied to victimless circumstances, such as someone watching porn in the privacy of his home. Or someone smoking a joint. "Morality," contrary to what the Radical Right wants you to think, is NOT a concept to be monopolized by White Conservative Christians. That is at the crux of where this nation is becoming divided.
Which is more "wrong": A man sucking another man's ween, or a man slaughtering 10 children with a legally obtained firearm?
I keep thinking of Toys, that Robin Williams movie, where this guy takes over a toy factory, and begins to manufacture military machines that will be remotely piloted by brainwashed children who think they're playing video games.