but it's a system that operates the computer right?
I mean regardless of where the pieces came from it's an entire system, correct?
True. But that wasn't the question; and answering the question really does depend on the view of an operating system:
is the traditional academic term of an operating system?
is it the engineering term for the operating system?
is it the common vernacular term for the operating system?
In the first, the answer depends on further information.
In the second, only the Linux Kernel would be considered the operating system; everything else (glibc, etc.) would be the user environment.
In the third, whatever comes on the computer out-of-the-box is the operating system.
And with some care about knowing which ABI's and API's you're using, you can take a binary from the Ubuntu distribution and run it on Red Hat, etc.
You can't do that stupid trick as readily with Android. If it were as simple as you describe, you'd be able to grab an Android userland binary and run it on ARM Debian or Ubuntu...which isn't possible.
If the Kernel version is the same, and the software only uses Kernel APIs, and you're using the same hardware then yes it could work. But you'd have a lot of extra work to do as you'd have to re-invent the glibc/Dalvik levels within the application.
If it's written for Dalvik, and you have a Dalvik VM under Debian or Ubuntu then it should run under the VM without any problems, again provided the Dalvik VM is the minimally required version that supports the expected APIs and the Android userland binary is in pure Dalvik bytecode - e.g. not compiled to native code.
They considered selling off their hardware business (accounting for 33% of their revenue), and now they don't want to take a loss selling a company that they bought and ran into the ground.
Who, exactly, is running this company, and why?
Palm wasn't exactly doing very well before HP bought them; so they didn't exactly run it into the ground.
Now, I'm not saying that the lack sales, etc. of any products they have produced through the Palm unit has not hurt the price at all - it probably has.
Just saying, it's not entirely HP's fault. They probably overbid on it to start with.
So from their perspective, the unit has not gained anything but hasn't really lost much of anything either; an trying to get the same price is taking a big of a hit - no ROI on the purchase (e.g. interest, etc.); just not as big of one as selling it off for less than they paid (resulting in a negative ROI instead of breaking even).
Just saying, there's multiple ways to look at it from an accounting view; take your pick for which one is your favorite.
Consider this - Facebook uses a lot of open source projects to deliver their site; and they've contributed a lot back to those projects. They may not release source directly (though there is http://developers.facebook.com/opensource/), but does that really matter in the end (as others have pointed out)? Even if they don't contribute 100% of their changes back (which since they are not distributing the code to others they are perfectly fine to do per the GPL - all versions of it), they are still doing well with promoting open source in many ways, and the fact that they've opened up an API that others can utilize without hinderance enables the platform they do deliver to be relatively easy to access from RMS "free" open source areas.
Same for Google, which does do some distribution but also funds a lot of open source projects through Google Summer of Code.
So how exactly are they hindering open source?
Even Microsoft has released several projects (wix.sf.net to name one) under true open source terms (GPL).
Wall St. could learn a few lessons from Hollywood - the financial crisis would still exist we just wouldn't know it!
That's the difference between publicly traded (e.g. SEC regulated) and privately held companies. Most all of the production companies are privately held - no stock, no/minimal SEC regulations as they only have to disclose the government where it doesn't matter so much. Wall St. is pretty much mostly publicly traded companies which have to follow all the SEC regulations so that their investors have the information desired/needed to make informed decisions, so they can't pull those kinds of shenanigans - those they do try, eventually get caught by the SEC and have to pay massive fines.
...that the Tower of Babel was built and destroyed long before the Babylonian empire existed, and that the was only one nation with one language at the time it was built, and it resulted in creation of numerous languages simultaneously, the scattering of people across the earth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011:1-9&version=NIV, Genesis 11:1-8). But when did archeologies let facts get in the way of what they wanted to proclaim?
One of my managers in the past taught me how to justify stuff by looking for the business case to do it. If I couldn't justify it that way, then the request wouldn't be granted. (I could come back if I needed to and try again.)
So, what's the business case? How would it increase the profits for the company? How about the SWOT analysis - which model (current or your proposed) as the greater strengths and opportunities?
Think like the manager to justify it to management; but you may find that it doesn't make business sense to do it either.
And don't forget to include the costs of transition in your analysis either - both to the new structure and what it would cost to return to the previous structure if things failed to be as beneficial as what is being proposed (e.g. cost of and plan for exit strategy in case of failure).
1. To make it interesting, it must be something that they will be able to use at home, not just in a school setting.
2. You also need something that will enable them to learn how to communicate while doing the work - and if it's interesting enough, they'll work on it more than just in your allocated time, and possibly even do their own things too (see #1).
As a result, it is probably best to use something that is open source. From that perspective, you have a few options:
1. Python - easy to program, and you get GUIs using PyQt or PyGtk.
2. Qt or Gtk coupled with any other language, though C++ would be a good one if you're willing to teach it; otherwise see #1.
3. Android Development Kit, and I'd suggest setting up a local "in-school" AppStore as well and showing them how to side-load apps. The "in-school" thing would let you have some control over the project you're directly, while the side-loading would let them do their own thing on their own devices. You could even have some folks work with the Arduino-based USB Kit too for doing extra controls if you like.
They didn't "do the right thing." They waited until the project was about completely dead and a better alternative (LibreOffice, and fuck all of you ignorant asswipes who think the name of a program has any significance beyond your own preferences, by the way). Then they gave it to Apache, otherwise known as "where web projects go to die." Those people took how long to finally offer a solution to the relatively simple Slowloris attack? Long enough for their competitors like nginx and cherokee to go through several revisions.
Please get your facts correct:
Oracle did not decide to wait for OOo to die. They simply stopped communicating as they don't understand the Open Source communities.
Oracle waited too long to communicate before doing anything. Probably as they were trying to understand what they had just bought; and figuring out how it fit into the organization.
a small group (3 people) decided they didn't want to wait for Oracle any more, forked the project, and have since sown a lot of discontinuity between the communities, having only had a small portion of the community join them, but acting like the entire community followed - which is not the case.
In light of the fork, and the discontinuity sown, Oracle decided to divest themselves of it, and returned it over to Apache as there was nothing they could do to "fix" the issue. So they simply followed plans already in the works to move OOo to an independent organization.
Apache is in essentially the same boat as XFree86 at this point. Some businesses depend on them and that's what keeps them afloat, but that's only because they haven't moved on to bigger and better things yet. They will eventually, and OpenOffice will be forgotten about.
And yet, Apache is one of the largest FOSS contributers, managing some of the largest projects out there, now inheriting another large project. The only other entity out there by comparison that has as many projects under one roof is the FSF. Yes, some projects at Apache end up petering out; but they are not kept afloat because people refuse to move on.
The name's not unimportant. My mom—and grandma—have heard of "that OpenOffice thing." They wouldn't know how to pronounce LibreOffice, much less know what it is. It might be worthwhile for the Apache Foundation to allow the Libre folks to use the OO name; but the Foundation apparently doesn't think so.
LibreOffice should only be allowed to use it if they are part of OpenOffice itself or only distribute a non-modified version that uses that name. However, the LibreOffice folks tend to think of themselves as a gift from God bestowed upon the world from which all things OpenOffice shall continue with, and have no interest in really mending the issues caused by Oracle's lack of communication with the OOo community. (Seriously, read their mailing lists!)
And FYI - Apache has reached out to them at numerous points to try to get them to join in; only to receive a bitchfest about Oracle or IBM in return.
So yeah, I would agree with Apache that they shouldn't be allowed to use the various OOo trademarks.
The problem with red light cameras is the lack of due process, the blatant use of it as a revenue stream
That is why South Carolina has said traffic cameras are illegal - no due process; even if a manned officer is monitoring the cameras (as one locality tried to do to get around the law with respect to I-95 and using them for speeding).
Perhaps the increase number of such crashes will educate those few extra people into not following the car in front at a distance of just 0.5cm, not distracting themselves with their radio, cigarette, makeup application etc. or... heaven forbid... perhaps taking another form of transport instead.
It has nothing to do with how far the person is traveling behind the person, and everything to do with how quickly they brake. If you are going 55mph, with a car following the recommended distance, and brake as hard as you can, you will still likely get hit.
The problem is that the traffic cameras make some decisions based solely on pure logic without taking into account the circumstances. Therefore, people try to keep to the strict logic of the cameras when they see them, and cause other problems as a result - including making people rear-end them.
sometimes the car in front of me goes far into the intersection, I go a little into the intersection and the car in front of me doesn't take advantage of an opening in the oncoming traffic. so now I'm stuck partway into a red-light intersection.
And you are legally obligated to clear the intersection. Please do. If you don't, you might cause the sensors to think there is no one in the left turn lane for your side of traffic depending on where you are at best; at worse, you block the cross traffic from being able to move.
Well, following the thread it's not quite clear what you are referring to as an illegal maneuver. If you are referring to people being in the intersection waiting for traffic to clear during a green so they can turn left, that is most certainly legal even if the light were to change to red, at which point they are to "clear the intersection"; if they cannot "clear the intersection" at that point (though they may have to wait for opposing traffic to clear, but it should be pretty immediate) and then yes, they are making an illegal maneuver.
Basically, if you are in the intersection then you have to clear it.
Now, I'm not talking about people to purposely enter into the intersection on the red because they don't want to wait for the light to cycle through again. But anyone that has entered into the intersection on green or yellow must by law clear the intersection before cross traffic has the right to move.
I stream with the Wii because I don't have an HDTV nor will we for the foreseeable future. I'm guessing there are plenty of people in the same boat as me who, with one kid and one on the way, one income and very little disposable cash, can't seem to justify a $500 TV purchase when we're using Netflix instead of cable to save money in the first place.
Similar boat - one kid though only. But I don't ever see us buying an HDTV; instead, we'll probably jump for a projector and a TV-tuner card for my vintage 2005-era[1] Linux Desktop that will be repurposed (still running Linux+KDE4) for the house-hold theater system when the time comes.
[1]AMD64 1.8GHz, 2 GB RAM, GeForce 6800 video card, and SB Audigy Platinum sound card. Should have plenty of room for a nice little TV-tuner for it in the case.
Let's get rid of the formalities here... and call it what we are all thinking it is... A REPLICATOR. (albeit a very basic one, but still...)
Unless of course there is a "royalty" fee attached to calling something that replicates items a REPLICATOR...
No, it's not a replicator. Main reason is that it is extruding metals and plastics to print; while a replicator would work at the atomic level using only energy to make the device; probably utilizing quantum mechanics to control the energy flows and make the desired atoms. Yeah, replicators are still far beyond us.
I wonder - are these scheduled visits? Pretty much every company will dress up things for visiting clients (you can't completely cover up problems, but you can present things as being better than they are normally.) If the Apple employees visited randomly, it might be interesting. Then again, it might actually be difficult to do truly unannounced visits... if Foxconn (or whomever) could look out for certain foreign visitors... perhaps with a little help from the government.
Can't say as I simply don't know. I do know he spent an inordinate amount of time supervising the facilities to ensure they didn't do things like chain people's hand's to the ceiling when they did something wrong. So at the very least they are putting their best effort into it.
Apple does quite a bit to manage their contractors and ensure good working conditions for the workers therein. I know one person who was an Apple manager and had to repeatedly visit sites to guarantee that the conditions did not degrade, etc.
Now as to how the pay works, that I can't say; but it certainly wouldn't have been slavery.
Think of all the recent examples of governments collapsing or suffering major revolts. The collapse of the dictatorship in Tunisia, the collapse of the Egyptian government, the Libyan uprising, the ongoing revolt in Syria, the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the various Soviet satellite states. In every single case I can think of, the government was headed by men. And there are currently about 20 different countries with female heads of state- Ireland, Finland, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand, Liberia, India... hell, Iceland is run by a lesbian.
In other words, it seems pretty clear that having a female head of state makes your country far less likely to undergo a revolution or to invite the invasion of a foreign power. Of course, this is one of those correlation does not equal causation things. It could be that women are less likely to do things like get involved in wars with other countries, or to run repressive regimes. It could also be that free, open, egalitarian societies are more stable, and more likely to elect women. I suspect it's probably a combination of the two. Personally, I happen to believe that there are profound biological differences in men and women that tend to be reflected in how they govern... but if there really is a difference in the sexes, there's a strong case to be made that the women should be the ones in power.
I'm amazed that people are still so passionate about driving themselves to work and so vehemently opposed to public transit. Don't all y'all realize that you could spend your commute time texting and Tweeting and talking and what-not with reckless abandon if you let a professional handle the driving for you?
Of if you are in the Los Angeles or Washington D.C. metro areas you could get yourself just as easily killed while that professional driver does the talking and texting too despite regulations against it. (Of course, they got themselves killed in those recent accidents too.)
Of course, that is also assuming that public transit is even available where you work. Guess what, for 80+% of the US it isn't; for the ~20% that is, is it is not even necessarily very good except in the major metropolitan areas (Atlanta, GA; NYC, NY; W.D.C., LA, CA; Chicago, IL, and a handful of other places). So for 80% of the populace that is not an option.
It would surprise me if a ban of hands-free would pass in Congress. However, I know of at least one study on Scientific American Frontiers (PBS show with Alan Alda) concluded that driving while talking on a HANDS-FREE phone was the equivalent of driving after three drinks. (How they calibrate three drinks I don't know, cause the effects of alcohol vary based on weight, metabolism, and chronic use).
Reports by 20/20 and Dateline have shown the same things when Hands-Free first came out.
Oh please tell me you aren't serious. That sexist "wives should submit to their husbands" is a bullshit view fostered during a time when a male-dominated society was prevalent. Christianity needs to grow up (and yes I say that as a Christian myself) and learn to live in this century. These views that so many of the faith hold from centuries ago are the main reason that we are so hated now in the world. Do you want that? I don't.
Interesting thing is that when looking at history societies tend to become matriarchal shortly before they collapse. They may stay around for 100-200 years of being matriarchal but collapse they do. The interesting thing is that the same societies were around for many more centuries or millenia prior to that as patriarchal societies.
Slashdot Mirror
but it's a system that operates the computer right? I mean regardless of where the pieces came from it's an entire system, correct?
True. But that wasn't the question; and answering the question really does depend on the view of an operating system:
In the first, the answer depends on further information.
In the second, only the Linux Kernel would be considered the operating system; everything else (glibc, etc.) would be the user environment.
In the third, whatever comes on the computer out-of-the-box is the operating system.
And with some care about knowing which ABI's and API's you're using, you can take a binary from the Ubuntu distribution and run it on Red Hat, etc.
You can't do that stupid trick as readily with Android. If it were as simple as you describe, you'd be able to grab an Android userland binary and run it on ARM Debian or Ubuntu...which isn't possible.
If the Kernel version is the same, and the software only uses Kernel APIs, and you're using the same hardware then yes it could work. But you'd have a lot of extra work to do as you'd have to re-invent the glibc/Dalvik levels within the application.
If it's written for Dalvik, and you have a Dalvik VM under Debian or Ubuntu then it should run under the VM without any problems, again provided the Dalvik VM is the minimally required version that supports the expected APIs and the Android userland binary is in pure Dalvik bytecode - e.g. not compiled to native code.
So is Ubuntu an OS?
No. It is the Ubuntu distribution of the Linux Kernel and GNU tool-chain.
They considered selling off their hardware business (accounting for 33% of their revenue), and now they don't want to take a loss selling a company that they bought and ran into the ground.
Who, exactly, is running this company, and why?
Palm wasn't exactly doing very well before HP bought them; so they didn't exactly run it into the ground.
Now, I'm not saying that the lack sales, etc. of any products they have produced through the Palm unit has not hurt the price at all - it probably has.
Just saying, it's not entirely HP's fault. They probably overbid on it to start with.
So from their perspective, the unit has not gained anything but hasn't really lost much of anything either; an trying to get the same price is taking a big of a hit - no ROI on the purchase (e.g. interest, etc.); just not as big of one as selling it off for less than they paid (resulting in a negative ROI instead of breaking even).
Just saying, there's multiple ways to look at it from an accounting view; take your pick for which one is your favorite.
Consider this - Facebook uses a lot of open source projects to deliver their site; and they've contributed a lot back to those projects. They may not release source directly (though there is http://developers.facebook.com/opensource/), but does that really matter in the end (as others have pointed out)? Even if they don't contribute 100% of their changes back (which since they are not distributing the code to others they are perfectly fine to do per the GPL - all versions of it), they are still doing well with promoting open source in many ways, and the fact that they've opened up an API that others can utilize without hinderance enables the platform they do deliver to be relatively easy to access from RMS "free" open source areas.
Same for Google, which does do some distribution but also funds a lot of open source projects through Google Summer of Code.
So how exactly are they hindering open source?
Even Microsoft has released several projects (wix.sf.net to name one) under true open source terms (GPL).
Wall St. could learn a few lessons from Hollywood - the financial crisis would still exist we just wouldn't know it!
That's the difference between publicly traded (e.g. SEC regulated) and privately held companies. Most all of the production companies are privately held - no stock, no/minimal SEC regulations as they only have to disclose the government where it doesn't matter so much. Wall St. is pretty much mostly publicly traded companies which have to follow all the SEC regulations so that their investors have the information desired/needed to make informed decisions, so they can't pull those kinds of shenanigans - those they do try, eventually get caught by the SEC and have to pay massive fines.
...that the Tower of Babel was built and destroyed long before the Babylonian empire existed, and that the was only one nation with one language at the time it was built, and it resulted in creation of numerous languages simultaneously, the scattering of people across the earth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011:1-9&version=NIV, Genesis 11:1-8). But when did archeologies let facts get in the way of what they wanted to proclaim?
One of my managers in the past taught me how to justify stuff by looking for the business case to do it. If I couldn't justify it that way, then the request wouldn't be granted. (I could come back if I needed to and try again.)
So, what's the business case? How would it increase the profits for the company? How about the SWOT analysis - which model (current or your proposed) as the greater strengths and opportunities?
Think like the manager to justify it to management; but you may find that it doesn't make business sense to do it either.
And don't forget to include the costs of transition in your analysis either - both to the new structure and what it would cost to return to the previous structure if things failed to be as beneficial as what is being proposed (e.g. cost of and plan for exit strategy in case of failure).
1. To make it interesting, it must be something that they will be able to use at home, not just in a school setting.
2. You also need something that will enable them to learn how to communicate while doing the work - and if it's interesting enough, they'll work on it more than just in your allocated time, and possibly even do their own things too (see #1).
As a result, it is probably best to use something that is open source. From that perspective, you have a few options:
1. Python - easy to program, and you get GUIs using PyQt or PyGtk.
2. Qt or Gtk coupled with any other language, though C++ would be a good one if you're willing to teach it; otherwise see #1.
3. Android Development Kit, and I'd suggest setting up a local "in-school" AppStore as well and showing them how to side-load apps. The "in-school" thing would let you have some control over the project you're directly, while the side-loading would let them do their own thing on their own devices. You could even have some folks work with the Arduino-based USB Kit too for doing extra controls if you like.
$0.02
Please get your facts correct:
And yet, Apache is one of the largest FOSS contributers, managing some of the largest projects out there, now inheriting another large project. The only other entity out there by comparison that has as many projects under one roof is the FSF. Yes, some projects at Apache end up petering out; but they are not kept afloat because people refuse to move on.
The name's not unimportant. My mom—and grandma—have heard of "that OpenOffice thing." They wouldn't know how to pronounce LibreOffice, much less know what it is. It might be worthwhile for the Apache Foundation to allow the Libre folks to use the OO name; but the Foundation apparently doesn't think so.
LibreOffice should only be allowed to use it if they are part of OpenOffice itself or only distribute a non-modified version that uses that name. However, the LibreOffice folks tend to think of themselves as a gift from God bestowed upon the world from which all things OpenOffice shall continue with, and have no interest in really mending the issues caused by Oracle's lack of communication with the OOo community. (Seriously, read their mailing lists!)
And FYI - Apache has reached out to them at numerous points to try to get them to join in; only to receive a bitchfest about Oracle or IBM in return.
So yeah, I would agree with Apache that they shouldn't be allowed to use the various OOo trademarks.
That is why South Carolina has said traffic cameras are illegal - no due process; even if a manned officer is monitoring the cameras (as one locality tried to do to get around the law with respect to I-95 and using them for speeding).
Perhaps the increase number of such crashes will educate those few extra people into not following the car in front at a distance of just 0.5cm, not distracting themselves with their radio, cigarette, makeup application etc. or... heaven forbid... perhaps taking another form of transport instead.
It has nothing to do with how far the person is traveling behind the person, and everything to do with how quickly they brake. If you are going 55mph, with a car following the recommended distance, and brake as hard as you can, you will still likely get hit.
The problem is that the traffic cameras make some decisions based solely on pure logic without taking into account the circumstances. Therefore, people try to keep to the strict logic of the cameras when they see them, and cause other problems as a result - including making people rear-end them.
sometimes the car in front of me goes far into the intersection, I go a little into the intersection and the car in front of me doesn't take advantage of an opening in the oncoming traffic. so now I'm stuck partway into a red-light intersection.
And you are legally obligated to clear the intersection. Please do. If you don't, you might cause the sensors to think there is no one in the left turn lane for your side of traffic depending on where you are at best; at worse, you block the cross traffic from being able to move.
Well, following the thread it's not quite clear what you are referring to as an illegal maneuver. If you are referring to people being in the intersection waiting for traffic to clear during a green so they can turn left, that is most certainly legal even if the light were to change to red, at which point they are to "clear the intersection"; if they cannot "clear the intersection" at that point (though they may have to wait for opposing traffic to clear, but it should be pretty immediate) and then yes, they are making an illegal maneuver.
Basically, if you are in the intersection then you have to clear it.
Now, I'm not talking about people to purposely enter into the intersection on the red because they don't want to wait for the light to cycle through again. But anyone that has entered into the intersection on green or yellow must by law clear the intersection before cross traffic has the right to move.
A t-mobile subscriber.
An AT&T subscriber.
I stream with the Wii because I don't have an HDTV nor will we for the foreseeable future. I'm guessing there are plenty of people in the same boat as me who, with one kid and one on the way, one income and very little disposable cash, can't seem to justify a $500 TV purchase when we're using Netflix instead of cable to save money in the first place.
Similar boat - one kid though only. But I don't ever see us buying an HDTV; instead, we'll probably jump for a projector and a TV-tuner card for my vintage 2005-era[1] Linux Desktop that will be repurposed (still running Linux+KDE4) for the house-hold theater system when the time comes.
[1]AMD64 1.8GHz, 2 GB RAM, GeForce 6800 video card, and SB Audigy Platinum sound card. Should have plenty of room for a nice little TV-tuner for it in the case.
Let's get rid of the formalities here... and call it what we are all thinking it is... A REPLICATOR. (albeit a very basic one, but still...) Unless of course there is a "royalty" fee attached to calling something that replicates items a REPLICATOR...
No, it's not a replicator. Main reason is that it is extruding metals and plastics to print; while a replicator would work at the atomic level using only energy to make the device; probably utilizing quantum mechanics to control the energy flows and make the desired atoms. Yeah, replicators are still far beyond us.
SCO was famous for this. $5,000 minimum support contracts, with $1,000 per incident fees, whether they fixed it or not.
No wonder they ended up losing so much money before they started suing everyone.
I wonder - are these scheduled visits? Pretty much every company will dress up things for visiting clients (you can't completely cover up problems, but you can present things as being better than they are normally.) If the Apple employees visited randomly, it might be interesting. Then again, it might actually be difficult to do truly unannounced visits... if Foxconn (or whomever) could look out for certain foreign visitors... perhaps with a little help from the government.
Can't say as I simply don't know. I do know he spent an inordinate amount of time supervising the facilities to ensure they didn't do things like chain people's hand's to the ceiling when they did something wrong. So at the very least they are putting their best effort into it.
And take off all Apple products.
Apple does quite a bit to manage their contractors and ensure good working conditions for the workers therein. I know one person who was an Apple manager and had to repeatedly visit sites to guarantee that the conditions did not degrade, etc.
Now as to how the pay works, that I can't say; but it certainly wouldn't have been slavery.
Think of all the recent examples of governments collapsing or suffering major revolts. The collapse of the dictatorship in Tunisia, the collapse of the Egyptian government, the Libyan uprising, the ongoing revolt in Syria, the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the various Soviet satellite states. In every single case I can think of, the government was headed by men. And there are currently about 20 different countries with female heads of state- Ireland, Finland, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand, Liberia, India... hell, Iceland is run by a lesbian.
In other words, it seems pretty clear that having a female head of state makes your country far less likely to undergo a revolution or to invite the invasion of a foreign power. Of course, this is one of those correlation does not equal causation things. It could be that women are less likely to do things like get involved in wars with other countries, or to run repressive regimes. It could also be that free, open, egalitarian societies are more stable, and more likely to elect women. I suspect it's probably a combination of the two. Personally, I happen to believe that there are profound biological differences in men and women that tend to be reflected in how they govern... but if there really is a difference in the sexes, there's a strong case to be made that the women should be the ones in power.
Society != Government
Of if you are in the Los Angeles or Washington D.C. metro areas you could get yourself just as easily killed while that professional driver does the talking and texting too despite regulations against it. (Of course, they got themselves killed in those recent accidents too.)
Of course, that is also assuming that public transit is even available where you work. Guess what, for 80+% of the US it isn't; for the ~20% that is, is it is not even necessarily very good except in the major metropolitan areas (Atlanta, GA; NYC, NY; W.D.C., LA, CA; Chicago, IL, and a handful of other places). So for 80% of the populace that is not an option.
It would surprise me if a ban of hands-free would pass in Congress. However, I know of at least one study on Scientific American Frontiers (PBS show with Alan Alda) concluded that driving while talking on a HANDS-FREE phone was the equivalent of driving after three drinks. (How they calibrate three drinks I don't know, cause the effects of alcohol vary based on weight, metabolism, and chronic use).
Reports by 20/20 and Dateline have shown the same things when Hands-Free first came out.
Oh please tell me you aren't serious. That sexist "wives should submit to their husbands" is a bullshit view fostered during a time when a male-dominated society was prevalent. Christianity needs to grow up (and yes I say that as a Christian myself) and learn to live in this century. These views that so many of the faith hold from centuries ago are the main reason that we are so hated now in the world. Do you want that? I don't.
Interesting thing is that when looking at history societies tend to become matriarchal shortly before they collapse. They may stay around for 100-200 years of being matriarchal but collapse they do. The interesting thing is that the same societies were around for many more centuries or millenia prior to that as patriarchal societies.
Makes one think.