There's nothing that someone trapped in a plane could do about an emergency. Well, all the business people will claim that the sales call was an emergency, but if your kid is home bleeding out, any call to you should have been made to 911, and after that, call the phone and leave a message, you'll get it when you land, when you can conceivably go to the hospital or whatever. Knowing your kid is near death 4 hours sooner has no effect on the situation.
The noise-canceling headphones are often advertised as amplifying the perceived volume of voices (which would include cries) because they minimize the interfering sounds.
The "best" solution is the in-ear plugs, with muffling noise-canceling headphones on top. You drop the total sound, and kill the hum and such.
Though I don't get along well with noise canceling headphones. The ones I had (not inexpensive ones) introduced a high-pitched whine when on. It was worse than the plane sounds I was trying to drown out. I keep meaning to try them again, but they are too expensive to buy just for a trial, and nobody else I know has a pair to borrow.
The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it.
Yes. That's what I came to say. The FCC/FAA should "allow" it, and the airlines should ban it, unless they have the last 2 rows set aside for cell-users. Unless they can monetize it (like the in-plane phones always legal), there's no reason to allow it. People don't use the phones on the plane because $2 or $5 per minute or whatever is enough to deter nearly everyone. But someone with 1000 minutes (5% used) would have no such dis-incentive.
We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
God no. The theaters refuse to enforce their own rules. And if a patron takes it upon themselves to point out the rules, they are assaulted (and shots are fired). I would pass a law making it explicit that if the theater has documented rules they refuse to enforce, any altercation caused by breach of those rules has all the civil liability fall first to the theater. I think that's fair, and would have prevented the most recent incident.
But they do. I have a record of everything in my cart, live. It's visible in my cart, I can see it.
The issue is that Apple deliberately made it easy to make follow-on purchases. The Target analogy is that when you are finished checking out, everyone using the line behind you for the next 15 minutes can say "put it on that guy's tab", and Target will send you an invoice later. If you got a purchase text as you were headed to the car, you'd run back in the store to figure out what was going on. The instant reminder wouldn't stop the first follow-on purcahse, but would help limit the extent of the "damage". You could also turn off the notification, if you like.
The real complaint boils down to purchases being as permissive as possible, with minimal notification. That increases the chance of error on the part of the user.
The question was about whether driving-related HUDs obstruct the view. They obviously don't. Glass isn't an obstruction anyway. It's offset. Also, the law applies to things attached to the car that obstruct (I call the handicapped-permit law), not things the driver wears, like a hat or glasses that obstruct view.
The problem with Google Glass is that it isn't augmented reality. It's out of the way. It doesn't and can't superimpose anything on your vision.
I remember once when my wife and I were coming back from visiting her parents it started to rain and it was just like someone flew over with a water drop plane. My wife was driving and neither of us could see anything so my wife pulled over. It only lasted two our three minutes, but apparently we pulled over just in time. There was an accident just ten meters down the road. Apparently the lady driving at the front panicked and slammed on her brakes. The women behind her was pulling over, but smashed into the first one because she had just stopped dead in the road.
The person in front should have their license taken away forever and be put in jail for attempted murder. I ran into that once (not literally). The rain on I-35 south of Dallas was so hard you couldn't see brakelights 200 feet in front of you. Of course, you don't need that far to stop at 45 mph (about 100 feet to stop), so I slowed down. I saw lights, I stopped. Turns out, the rain was so bad, some people pulled over, under an overpass. The shoulder had stopped cars in it. The shoulder was full, so some cars were stopped in the right lane out of the rain. And, in front of me, in the "fast lane" was a car, stopped in the road. Yes, a car came to a complete stop, blocking the last open lane in an interstate to get out of the rain.
Most of the cars didn't have their brake lights on, they just put the cars in park and were waiting, the taillights being much less bright. And not a single one had hazards on either. I laid on my horn and pulled as close to the car as possible, I figured I was 10 seconds away from death from someone behind who was going too fast or not paying enough attention. The pulled foreward into the rain, and into the right lane, and stopped on the interstate. I continued on. The rain was bad, some of the worst I've ever seen (and I've been in an actual tropical rainstorm in the tropics), but damn are people stupid sometimes.
If I had Google Glass running, I'd have sent the video to the police and asked for prosecutions of everyone stopped on an interstate. Though now, I just use a dashcam.
There is no report that he got anything from his car. He went to find an employee, then returned quietly to his seat, where he was assaulted and defended himself.
So, what? Riots are more fun if everyone is armed? It's unacceptable to point out that gun fights are more deadly than fist fights (in general, I know piles of people come up with extraordinary exceptions all the time).
The charge is for having the container. Much like people get arrested for drug trafficking for no reason other than having over a certain quantity of drug. There's no need to prove use if the charge is based on possession. But that's not how the laws work for computers/GPS.
So, what classes does Cadillac offer for their cars with HUDs? None? Then how would you assert that training is necessary, when none is even available? The manufacturer, so far unused, doesn't recommend any. HUDs aren't inherently problematic. You are apparently the only person who is unable to use them without extra training. Sounds like a personal problem.
At Target, you get the receipt when you pay. That's temporally related. With Apple, you get it sometime later.
So why bother with a pointless email? All it can do is tell you either what you already know or what has no immediate effect. You can't take any action based on that information. You can't issue a refund until the charge posts to your bank account. You don't need an order acknowledgment when the order is filled immediately. You can't undo the transaction any faster by getting a redundant email.
So you are asserting that the people who had the children buy multiple items wouldn't have stopped it after the first, if they were timely notified? That's a pretty stupid argument to be making.
So most GPS systems are illegal, as most are not "installed", and a dash-mounted tablet used exclusively for GPS is illegal, as it doesn't have an interlock device.
Most GPS systems are "installed" so far as they are clipped into a holder, as people tend to remove them often to prevent theft.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm forced to review the list before every purchase is processed in Target. Apple has no such checks.
I don't hate Apple. I'm just pointing out the user-hate on Slashdot. Why do you hate users?
There's nothing that someone trapped in a plane could do about an emergency. Well, all the business people will claim that the sales call was an emergency, but if your kid is home bleeding out, any call to you should have been made to 911, and after that, call the phone and leave a message, you'll get it when you land, when you can conceivably go to the hospital or whatever. Knowing your kid is near death 4 hours sooner has no effect on the situation.
The noise-canceling headphones are often advertised as amplifying the perceived volume of voices (which would include cries) because they minimize the interfering sounds.
The "best" solution is the in-ear plugs, with muffling noise-canceling headphones on top. You drop the total sound, and kill the hum and such.
Though I don't get along well with noise canceling headphones. The ones I had (not inexpensive ones) introduced a high-pitched whine when on. It was worse than the plane sounds I was trying to drown out. I keep meaning to try them again, but they are too expensive to buy just for a trial, and nobody else I know has a pair to borrow.
The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it.
Yes. That's what I came to say. The FCC/FAA should "allow" it, and the airlines should ban it, unless they have the last 2 rows set aside for cell-users. Unless they can monetize it (like the in-plane phones always legal), there's no reason to allow it. People don't use the phones on the plane because $2 or $5 per minute or whatever is enough to deter nearly everyone. But someone with 1000 minutes (5% used) would have no such dis-incentive.
We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
God no. The theaters refuse to enforce their own rules. And if a patron takes it upon themselves to point out the rules, they are assaulted (and shots are fired). I would pass a law making it explicit that if the theater has documented rules they refuse to enforce, any altercation caused by breach of those rules has all the civil liability fall first to the theater. I think that's fair, and would have prevented the most recent incident.
But they do. I have a record of everything in my cart, live. It's visible in my cart, I can see it.
The issue is that Apple deliberately made it easy to make follow-on purchases. The Target analogy is that when you are finished checking out, everyone using the line behind you for the next 15 minutes can say "put it on that guy's tab", and Target will send you an invoice later. If you got a purchase text as you were headed to the car, you'd run back in the store to figure out what was going on. The instant reminder wouldn't stop the first follow-on purcahse, but would help limit the extent of the "damage". You could also turn off the notification, if you like.
The real complaint boils down to purchases being as permissive as possible, with minimal notification. That increases the chance of error on the part of the user.
The question was about whether driving-related HUDs obstruct the view. They obviously don't. Glass isn't an obstruction anyway. It's offset. Also, the law applies to things attached to the car that obstruct (I call the handicapped-permit law), not things the driver wears, like a hat or glasses that obstruct view.
I remember once when my wife and I were coming back from visiting her parents it started to rain and it was just like someone flew over with a water drop plane. My wife was driving and neither of us could see anything so my wife pulled over. It only lasted two our three minutes, but apparently we pulled over just in time. There was an accident just ten meters down the road. Apparently the lady driving at the front panicked and slammed on her brakes. The women behind her was pulling over, but smashed into the first one because she had just stopped dead in the road.
The person in front should have their license taken away forever and be put in jail for attempted murder. I ran into that once (not literally). The rain on I-35 south of Dallas was so hard you couldn't see brakelights 200 feet in front of you. Of course, you don't need that far to stop at 45 mph (about 100 feet to stop), so I slowed down. I saw lights, I stopped. Turns out, the rain was so bad, some people pulled over, under an overpass. The shoulder had stopped cars in it. The shoulder was full, so some cars were stopped in the right lane out of the rain. And, in front of me, in the "fast lane" was a car, stopped in the road. Yes, a car came to a complete stop, blocking the last open lane in an interstate to get out of the rain.
Most of the cars didn't have their brake lights on, they just put the cars in park and were waiting, the taillights being much less bright. And not a single one had hazards on either. I laid on my horn and pulled as close to the car as possible, I figured I was 10 seconds away from death from someone behind who was going too fast or not paying enough attention. The pulled foreward into the rain, and into the right lane, and stopped on the interstate. I continued on. The rain was bad, some of the worst I've ever seen (and I've been in an actual tropical rainstorm in the tropics), but damn are people stupid sometimes.
If I had Google Glass running, I'd have sent the video to the police and asked for prosecutions of everyone stopped on an interstate. Though now, I just use a dashcam.
And nobody says otherwise. Why do you think her a liar, when there's absolutely nothing contradicting her?
The Old West proves you wrong.
There is no report that he got anything from his car. He went to find an employee, then returned quietly to his seat, where he was assaulted and defended himself.
So, what? Riots are more fun if everyone is armed? It's unacceptable to point out that gun fights are more deadly than fist fights (in general, I know piles of people come up with extraordinary exceptions all the time).
The charge is for having the container. Much like people get arrested for drug trafficking for no reason other than having over a certain quantity of drug. There's no need to prove use if the charge is based on possession. But that's not how the laws work for computers/GPS.
So, what classes does Cadillac offer for their cars with HUDs? None? Then how would you assert that training is necessary, when none is even available? The manufacturer, so far unused, doesn't recommend any. HUDs aren't inherently problematic. You are apparently the only person who is unable to use them without extra training. Sounds like a personal problem.
So why bother with a pointless email? All it can do is tell you either what you already know or what has no immediate effect. You can't take any action based on that information. You can't issue a refund until the charge posts to your bank account. You don't need an order acknowledgment when the order is filled immediately. You can't undo the transaction any faster by getting a redundant email.
So you are asserting that the people who had the children buy multiple items wouldn't have stopped it after the first, if they were timely notified? That's a pretty stupid argument to be making.
Google glass doesn't operate that way. Why do you fear technology?
People generally don't smoke pot in the parking lot of the police station.
The assertion was that special training was needed to use HUDs. That assertion is wrong.
All GPS is legal in CA? I hadn't heard that. Last I was there, I saw plenty in use.
And the fact that none of those have been applied to the current HUD equipped cars in the US supports my argument, not yours.
It's a stab at Putin acting like a tsar. The "new" thing is that they are looking at better ways to lure them back.
So most GPS systems are illegal, as most are not "installed", and a dash-mounted tablet used exclusively for GPS is illegal, as it doesn't have an interlock device.
Most GPS systems are "installed" so far as they are clipped into a holder, as people tend to remove them often to prevent theft.
So ever driver with a cell phone in their pocket or a Casio watch is breaking the law in CA. That says more about the law than her actions.
Using Glass, it's very easy and conceivable to focus on the image for a second or two.
She wasn't "using" glass. And why does that matter when staring at a GPS for 10 seconds at 55 mph is legal (and therefore safe, according to many)?
There are plenty of cars available now with legal HUDs, no training required. Your arguement doesn't work.
So what about the cars with HUDs in them? No special training, and so far, no legal assertions that they are illegal.