I don't understand the assumption that any conceivable use of a phone in a moving vehicle is criminally "dangerous" and must be punished, regardless of what the actual use was and the actual danger, if any. I call that over-reaction.
Yes, "Smartphones" are more dangerous than alcohol when driving. Just owning a smartphone makes you a bad driver. Those evil smartphones! Ban them all!
Nope. The article was about using a phone while driving. Any use. Lumping all possible usage of a phone into the same category as texting is a recipe for draconian laws that go too far. Texting while driving is incredibly stupid, but that isn't a reason to outlaw all phone usage.
Sorry, not buying it unless there is a specific breakdown of exactly what driving + whatever is "dangerous". Lumping any and all "using a phone" into a single grouping is disingenuous at best.
Texting while driving? That's both stupid and dangerous -- outlaw that for sure. But making all phone usage while driving against the law is an over-reaction. The freeway clogs unexpectedly and I need to hands free make a quick phone call -- and that's breaking the law? Come on! I see a dangerous drunk driver (or texting driver) that I want to report? Nope, breaking the law. Even hands free? Nope. I'm using the navigation app on my phone to get me to my destination? Nope, "using phone while driving". Here's your ticket.
Yeah, there's a "mountain" of evidence about "using a phone" so let's outlaw all "using a phone" now-now-now!
How about some intelligent solutions? Oh, noes, that takes too long! Panic! FUD!
You always see these single-study reports to get everyone to panic about this "horrible epidemic" just before the powers-that-be attempt to pass some draconian restriction which will stop everyone from doing something just because a stupid minority.
A few years from now, after the legislation has been passed in a panic, more studies will then find that the problem really wasn't that bad and other solutions would be better at solving the real problem without restricting everyone's activities. Ah! Too late, the law was already passed.
Or... d) because the wealthy could not tolerate the idea that they were not welcome in Heaven.
By the way, there is not (and never has been) any real evidence of a backdoor in any walled city called "eye of the needle" or any such wording. No archeological evidence, no references in historical texts of the time, nothing.
Personally, I'm fond of "the wealthy didn't like being rejected from Heaven so they made this up" explanation. But I have no evidence either.
Not to be pedantic but that definition of "eye of a needle" is completely unproven. What I don't understand is why some OTHER definition is required. It is obviously impossible for a camel to go through the actual eye of a needle which fits that biblical quote exactly. Can someone explain why there has to be another definition?
According to Google, there is no code in the P3P standard to accurately describe how Google uses cookies. In other words, they can't accurately describe it in standard P3P code.
I'm not trolling, I'm actually curious. If we assume that statement is accurate, how should a website fill use the P3P header?
I found the secret was to tell all the other interested parties how the new project would delay their project. Let them all sort it out -- they will, one way or the other.
'What I do not understand is — had the jury determined Eolas's patents valid — why it would be A-OK for dozens of already megarich corporations to get even richer adopting technology they did not invent or have legal permission to use, but somehow immoral for the actual creators of the technology to likewise profit[?]"
What you do not understand, Mr. Stanganelli, is that Eolas DID NOT INVENT IT EITHER. Eolas is NOT the "actual creators" so why, to use your own logic, should THEY profit?
Microsoft owns the patents based on years of R&D and they legally ask for companies to pay to use their patented technology.
Well, therein lies the problem. It isn'tproven that Android actually uses their patented technology - Microsoft won't even disclose which patents they claim are being infringed. Without that proof, what Microsoft is actually demanding is money for nothing. And that is "legal" how? It's extortion, plain and simple.
Without Microsoft disclosing which patents, proving that those patents are valid AND those patents are being used by Android, the whole thing is simply a con. "It's cheaper for you to just give us money than for you to go to court and force us to prove anything."
If Microsoft were legal and honest, they would disclose the patents. They refuse. That says it all.
Of course, the "Doomsday Clock" is completely meaningless, based as it is on a few peoples' opinions, it does have a use. When hand-waving and foot stomping don't convince people to do what you think they should do, try panicking them.
In my opinion, the tablet combines the inconvenience of a laptop (it won't fit in your pocket so you have to carry it around in your hand or carry a bag) with the inconvenience of the small screen (larger than a phone but still too small for real work). The worst of both worlds. What's not to like?
Major freeway tie-up when I needed to catch a plane. Smartphone got me there.
Big problem at work and not near home or work. Smartphone to VPN, ssh and solve it quickly.
200 passwords to keep track of. Smartphone does it.
Indeed. If these are the strongest patents the Microsoft can bring to battle (and they wouldn't lead with anything less), this would indicate that Microsoft is a paper tiger in the smartphone jungle.
Wait. A person is using Google Contacts and is complaining because they don't want to use a Google app to access contacts on Google? There are dozens of Android apps for handling contacts -- only one is from Google. You really have to wonder about people.
Wait. The front web page of Flurry says "FLURRY: Introducing a game-changing marketing approach to build your iOS audience more effectively."
So, they target Flurry for iOS and then find that most of their developers use iOS. And this is worthy of any notice?
Every time there is some new technology which people can use to distract themselves from driving, it has to be banned. I have a suggestion to stop this Whack-a-Mole reaction: Just outlaw Driving While Dumb. Call it DWD. No matter what technology comes around, if someone can't figure out how to drive safely while doing something else (tuning the radio, drinking coffee, making a call, chewing gum) they are breaking the DWD law and can be arrested.
What a nice, simple world you live in. You and so damn many others.
Corporations are Bad.
People who have or earn a lot of money are Bad
Republicans are Bad
And your simple little world is matched on the other side by those who believe the black and white opposite.
Government is Bad
Liberals are Bad
And so on. Absolute after absolute. Everything is simple black and white and you (all the black and white thinkers) have the simple black and white answer.
Why oh why can't everyone agree with your simple solution to all these black and white problems?
Your black and white absolutism ensures that there will be no real world solutions because things are not black and white and solutions are not simple.
Until we recognize there is good in those we've called Bad, and there is bad in those we've labelled Good, we won't make any real progress in finding a real solution.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand the assumption that any conceivable use of a phone in a moving vehicle is criminally "dangerous" and must be punished, regardless of what the actual use was and the actual danger, if any. I call that over-reaction.
Yes, "Smartphones" are more dangerous than alcohol when driving. Just owning a smartphone makes you a bad driver. Those evil smartphones! Ban them all!
Nope. The article was about using a phone while driving. Any use. Lumping all possible usage of a phone into the same category as texting is a recipe for draconian laws that go too far. Texting while driving is incredibly stupid, but that isn't a reason to outlaw all phone usage.
Sorry, not buying it unless there is a specific breakdown of exactly what driving + whatever is "dangerous". Lumping any and all "using a phone" into a single grouping is disingenuous at best.
Texting while driving? That's both stupid and dangerous -- outlaw that for sure. But making all phone usage while driving against the law is an over-reaction. The freeway clogs unexpectedly and I need to hands free make a quick phone call -- and that's breaking the law? Come on! I see a dangerous drunk driver (or texting driver) that I want to report? Nope, breaking the law. Even hands free? Nope. I'm using the navigation app on my phone to get me to my destination? Nope, "using phone while driving". Here's your ticket.
Yeah, there's a "mountain" of evidence about "using a phone" so let's outlaw all "using a phone" now-now-now!
How about some intelligent solutions? Oh, noes, that takes too long! Panic! FUD!
So passengers are not allowed to use a phone? That's quite an over-reaction.
You always see these single-study reports to get everyone to panic about this "horrible epidemic" just before the powers-that-be attempt to pass some draconian restriction which will stop everyone from doing something just because a stupid minority.
A few years from now, after the legislation has been passed in a panic, more studies will then find that the problem really wasn't that bad and other solutions would be better at solving the real problem without restricting everyone's activities. Ah! Too late, the law was already passed.
Panic early and often, then they can control you.
Or ... d) because the wealthy could not tolerate the idea that they were not welcome in Heaven.
By the way, there is not (and never has been) any real evidence of a backdoor in any walled city called "eye of the needle" or any such wording. No archeological evidence, no references in historical texts of the time, nothing.
Personally, I'm fond of "the wealthy didn't like being rejected from Heaven so they made this up" explanation. But I have no evidence either.
Not to be pedantic but that definition of "eye of a needle" is completely unproven. What I don't understand is why some OTHER definition is required. It is obviously impossible for a camel to go through the actual eye of a needle which fits that biblical quote exactly. Can someone explain why there has to be another definition?
According to Google, there is no code in the P3P standard to accurately describe how Google uses cookies. In other words, they can't accurately describe it in standard P3P code.
I'm not trolling, I'm actually curious. If we assume that statement is accurate, how should a website fill use the P3P header?
I found the secret was to tell all the other interested parties how the new project would delay their project. Let them all sort it out -- they will, one way or the other.
Google could develop nuclear weapons and start a war! Google could start stockpiling and hoarding gold! We must stop them! (Buy HP products)
'What I do not understand is — had the jury determined Eolas's patents valid — why it would be A-OK for dozens of already megarich corporations to get even richer adopting technology they did not invent or have legal permission to use, but somehow immoral for the actual creators of the technology to likewise profit[?]"
What you do not understand, Mr. Stanganelli, is that Eolas DID NOT INVENT IT EITHER. Eolas is NOT the "actual creators" so why, to use your own logic, should THEY profit?
L. Ron Hubbard on Venus.
Microsoft owns the patents based on years of R&D and they legally ask for companies to pay to use their patented technology.
Well, therein lies the problem. It isn't proven that Android actually uses their patented technology - Microsoft won't even disclose which patents they claim are being infringed. Without that proof, what Microsoft is actually demanding is money for nothing. And that is "legal" how? It's extortion, plain and simple.
Without Microsoft disclosing which patents, proving that those patents are valid AND those patents are being used by Android, the whole thing is simply a con. "It's cheaper for you to just give us money than for you to go to court and force us to prove anything."
If Microsoft were legal and honest, they would disclose the patents. They refuse. That says it all.
Of course, the "Doomsday Clock" is completely meaningless, based as it is on a few peoples' opinions, it does have a use. When hand-waving and foot stomping don't convince people to do what you think they should do, try panicking them.
In my opinion, the tablet combines the inconvenience of a laptop (it won't fit in your pocket so you have to carry it around in your hand or carry a bag) with the inconvenience of the small screen (larger than a phone but still too small for real work). The worst of both worlds. What's not to like?
[citation needed]
Accusations of wrongdoing are not proof.
Major freeway tie-up when I needed to catch a plane. Smartphone got me there.
Big problem at work and not near home or work. Smartphone to VPN, ssh and solve it quickly.
200 passwords to keep track of. Smartphone does it.
Dumbphone wouldn't work for any of that.
Indeed. If these are the strongest patents the Microsoft can bring to battle (and they wouldn't lead with anything less), this would indicate that Microsoft is a paper tiger in the smartphone jungle.
Wait. A person is using Google Contacts and is complaining because they don't want to use a Google app to access contacts on Google? There are dozens of Android apps for handling contacts -- only one is from Google. You really have to wonder about people.
Wait. The front web page of Flurry says "FLURRY: Introducing a game-changing marketing approach to build your iOS audience more effectively." So, they target Flurry for iOS and then find that most of their developers use iOS. And this is worthy of any notice?
Every time there is some new technology which people can use to distract themselves from driving, it has to be banned. I have a suggestion to stop this Whack-a-Mole reaction: Just outlaw Driving While Dumb. Call it DWD. No matter what technology comes around, if someone can't figure out how to drive safely while doing something else (tuning the radio, drinking coffee, making a call, chewing gum) they are breaking the DWD law and can be arrested.
I, for one, am convinced by your well-reasoned arguments.
(I think it's the ALL CAPS that was most convincing).
What a nice, simple world you live in. You and so damn many others.
Corporations are Bad.
People who have or earn a lot of money are Bad
Republicans are Bad
And your simple little world is matched on the other side by those who believe the black and white opposite.
Government is Bad
Liberals are Bad
And so on. Absolute after absolute. Everything is simple black and white and you (all the black and white thinkers) have the simple black and white answer.
Why oh why can't everyone agree with your simple solution to all these black and white problems?
Your black and white absolutism ensures that there will be no real world solutions because things are not black and white and solutions are not simple.
Until we recognize there is good in those we've called Bad, and there is bad in those we've labelled Good, we won't make any real progress in finding a real solution.
Wait, I'm confused. Here she is saying that Steve Jobs is God. After all, Jobs was the one who created the iPhone.
So, God is dead, is in hell and they're going to picket God's funeral?
Nice to know they aren't confused or anything.