1) It's not Apple's job to police Microsoft's trademarks - that's Microsoft's job.
As the curator of their own store, Apple is liable for misuse of Microsoft's trademarks within that store. It would be different if they didn't, supposedly, curate that store, but they do; allowing the misuse of Microsoft's trademark in that manner is, effectively, Apple misusing it themselves. This is especially true as Apple profits directly from it, in the form of 30% of all resulting sales.
In that sense, and as a shareholder, it is absolutely Apple's job to police Microsoft's trademarks where they may face liability for any such violations.
Every consignment shop I've sold through or bought from stakes their reputation in their ability to vet the items sold in their shop as either genuine and complete (and, therefore, worth the increased price tag) or fake/replica/incomplete/broken (and, therefore, priced lower or refused for consignment).
You're right, that's is a proper analogy and it does make a lot more sense. Apple should give a shit, because they're putting their name on it.
So, I guess the same logic as this study could tell you to never eat some of the healthiest foods we are aware of, or else you will get fat.
The question is, then, what is found in those healthy foods that helps your body process that phenylalanine, potentially rendering it beneficial (or, at least, neutral) rather than harmful? Much like fruits (not juices) contain fructose, which we know is bad for us in quantity, they're fine because that fructose is bundled with fiber, which your body utilizes in the course of processing and storing that sugar, rendering it beneficial (as a stored source of energy) rather than harmful (as a literal poison).
My kid is misbehaving and not following my perfectly reasonable rules, so I'll have to enforce them more strictly.
Yes, fewer "warnings" (none, actually) and actual consequences.
Oh look, he's ignoring them anyway.
Then you're not enforcing them.
Oh well, I guess I TRIED, there's nothing more I can do.
Except that you didn't and there is.
If only I could impose more penalties for not obeying my rules, maybe he'd get the message and behave?
That's exactly what I'm proposing. Actual penalties for existing rules, not more rules that will just be ignored like the existing ones.
Oh, but I can't, so I guess I'll just let him do what he wants.
Methinks you've started with my argument and finished with your own.
THAT is what you sound like.
Only to those who aren't listening.
People are not obeying the current laws and even stricter enforcement of them does not make enough difference to matter, therefore the laws are INSUFFICIENT and must be changed to protect the safety of the public-at-large!
No, the enforcement is insufficient. Pulled over while texting and what, a fine? No. Take their license for a year. Oh, and actually be looking for it and pull them over for it. That is enforcement. Adding a new law with the same weak enforcement won't have any effect; people will ignore it just as they ignore every other law they don't like.
Why can't you get that through your head?
Because history has proven you wrong time and time again.
If it takes making a new law that requires all cellphones to be disabled except for 911 calls while a vehicle is in motion, then that is was has to happen, plain and simple.
And if it takes holding on to old phones that don't do that and refusing to buy phones affected by the new law until manufacturers lobby to have it repealed to save their businesses, that's what people will do, plain and simple.
If it takes requiring no cellphone be turned on while a vehicle is not parked, then that is what has to happen.
No, that's actually been tried. It was proposed in California in 2008, and at the national level in 2013 and 2015. It was shot down all 3 times for the exact reasons I keep stating. Enforcement. They can't (or don't) enforce current laws, which would be effective enough if they did; a new unenforced law won't fix the problem.
SOMETHING has to change or the problem won't go away!
We actually agree on this point.
Continuing to do things the same way over and over again is the textbook definition of 'insane'.
We also agree on this point; you're simply applying a flawed interpretation. Adding unenforced (or unenforceable) law on top of unenforced law is... what? Doing the same thing, the same way, over and over again. What I'm proposing is that we keep doing the thing we're currently doing, but change how we do it. For starters, give the existing laws real consequences; not fines, but jail time and loss of license. Then, actually pull people over for it. You know, enforce it. Without that, it might as we ll not be on the books in the first place.
You don't like it, GO YELL AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SCREWING WITH THEIR PHONES WHILE DRIVING
Well, wouldn't ya know, I actually already do.
NOT PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO DON'T AND WANT THEM TO STOP DOING IT!
Pot, meet Kettle.
The difference between you and me? You're proposing something that history has repeatedly and consistently shown to be ineffective, while I'm proposing something that has re
BLM needs to, first, target the majority of Black Lives that are taken by other Black Lives. It's not a racist viewpoint, it's a fact: most Black Lives are taken by Black men.
The Black community needs to no longer be known for their willingness to murder, in cold blood, people they should perceive as being on the "same side"; only then will all the groups commonly thought to be "the enemy" of the Black People be able to interact with them on level ground. Yes, the problem is caused by a very small portion of the Black community. That does not negate the damage it does to that community as a whole.
To put it another way, consider the following: The number of White cops who shoot Black men in cold blood is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men. The number of White men who snap and go on shooting sprees is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men. The number of White men who actively participate in the systemic racism I keep hearing about is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men; the rest of us are just here as a matter of fact and we need the Black community to help us change it as much as they need us to help them change it.
If reporting (on both sides of the issue) is to be believed, if you were to put all of the White men and all of the Black men who are actually part of the problem in a room together, you'd note two things: A) There would be more Black men than White men in that room, by at least a factor of two and B) the problem would solve itself; the lone survivor of the ensuing fight wouldn't be able to cause any notable issues.
Why reporting on both sides? Because both sides have bias and considering data from both sides helps to remove some of that bias. The only other thing we have is gut feeling and, well, gut feeling is what drove us here in the first place. We'd better start actually looking at that data soon if we're going to fix this.
Do I benefit from my Whilte-maleness? Almost certainly. Can I enumerate those benefits? No. Do I seek them out? No. Do I feel guilty about it? Hell no. Why not? Because I get attacked just for being White and male, for the "privilege" afforded to me by other people, which I do not seek out for myself.
Yes, I have the privilege of being told I am part of the problem, when I am likely one of the few who can actually see what the root of that problem is and has ideas that might actually work to start solving it and undo some of the damage.
How dare I, a White cis male, purport to understand the problem, though, right? After all, I can't possibly understand the suffering, they tell me. And they're right, I can't, I'm sure. But they're also wrong; one need not understand the suffering in order to understand the cause of the suffering. In fact, one who is suffering is less likely to understand the cause; it's why even trained doctors go to the doctor. You can't treat yourself when your head is clouded by disease.
And yes, systemic racism in this country is a disease.
As far as I can tell you fundamentally agree that Trump and Bernies plans were racist.
How is telling people who are here illegally to GTFO and only come back when they're willing to follow established legal channels to get a work visa and participate in the tax system that supports local and federal infrastructure racist?
Let me guess, because people born here won't be hit by it? First of all, at worst that's nationalist, not racist; I'll remind you that people of all races are born here and, if born here, are natural citizens and will not be hit by this. Second, we're talking about millions of people not paying taxes while, at the same time using the services paid for by those taxes, which drives up budget requirements across the board and increases your taxes.
That's why we have these laws, period. Trump is just going to actually enforce them now.
I'm more worried about what he's going to do to international relations with our current allies than what he's going to do with people who shouldn't be here in the first place. You should be, too.
So we should be fixing the 3rd-world shitholes on our own land before we go try and fix them overseas. Let's figure out what works before we spread the disease.
The people I am referring to are the asshats who read and reply to text messages, tweets, and Facebook posts while driving. Driving mode would, ostensibly, disable that functionality. How does that make it more convenient for them?
To be clear, yes, votes are cast (in sextuplicate) on the 19th (actually, in the week following the 19th), as well, and attached to the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment. The seventh Certificate of Ascertainment should have already been turned in to the Archivist (AotUS), also including that state's proposed Electoral Votes, prior to the meeting on the 19th.
And no, they don't all get together to vote; they gather at the state level and cast their votes during the following week, to be turned in by the 28th.
Funny, I checked after I wrote that and yes, your own resource does, in fact, say as much. Did you even read it?
Funny, CNN is reporting Electoral results (incomplete as not all states have turned in their votes yet) in addition to popular vote results.
If all of this noise is about Hillary losing the election based on popular vote, it's all fucking wrong; she won that by nearly 2 million votes. Only 522 of the 538 Electoral votes are in and the states have until December 19th to get them in; the remaining 16 uncast votes, however, are not enough to swing things in Hillary's favor.
Hillary supporters with mod points. You know what? She still lost, so moderate away. Before you waste your time, though, how about some full disclosure: I'd be no less happy if Hillary had won; they're both shit.
Oh, bloody fucking Hell. The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by the People. Our votes, whether paper or electronic ballot, only serve to tell the EC who we want in office, and Trump lost that vote by nearly 2 million votes. The Electoral College does note vote the same way we do and how they cast their votes is consistent across jurisdictions; they all vote the same way.
There is no "Trump won because voting machines were hacked" because Trump lost the popular vote election where those machines were used. It is trivial to recount the 538 Electoral votes and I'm sure it's been done time and again, with each member of the Electoral College confirming their votes multiple times throughout the process. It would be exceedingly difficult to hack that process in any meaningful way; you'd have to convince the entire Electoral College that they voted for someone they did not.
To clarify the fact that I don't fuck with my phone while driving, the sentence beginning with "They don't affect me," should end with "before I start driving."
No, and nobody claimed that, either. What you miss, however, is my point: what you're advocating for is precisely the mindset that leads to laws for everything, whether that is your intent or not.
You're probably one of the entitled jackasses who keeps screwing with his phone while he's driving anyway.
If you had the reading comprehension of the 5 year old you allude to, you'd have noted the following, in my initial response to you:
I use my phone for navigation and music, neither of which are a distraction above and beyond a standalone GPS or the radio. I also listen for message notifications so I can pull over and deal with a potential server issue should I get a flood of them.
Do I read or reply to them while driving? No, that would be idiotic.
Advocating for legislation preventing responsible thinking adults from using a device in a reasonable and non-distracting manner simply because some idiots (who ignore existing laws and will, in all likelihood, also ignore your proposed law, rendering it completely ineffective at its stated goal while being a massive pain in the ass for everyone else) can't control themselves is the exact mindset that leads to laws for everything. Again, it teaches people that the mindset of "if it's not illegal it must be safe; and if it's legal and not safe it must be the government's fault" is okay, where I believe we can both agree it is not.
To wit, I fully support "don't fuck with your phone while driving" laws. They don't affect me, I fuck with my phone to connect it to my car's audio system and get music started (at which point I fuck with my car's audio system to skip songs I don't want to hear, much as I'd fuck with it to tune stations) and, if necessary, to set up navigation; then, I leave it tucked away in the center console, out of view. I would lose both of those functions, and I would lose the notification alerts alluded to previously which, in turn, would cause me to lose clients a large chunk of my ongoing income, if I were legally required to turn it off. I'll also point out that I would spend more time distracted flipping through radio stations so effectively "skip" songs I don't want to hear and either have my view partially blocked by a standalone GPS or be directing a large portion of my attention to a paper map or atlas if I needed navigation.
My phone, the way I use it, actually helps me direct more of my attention to the road than would be allowed by the devices it replaces (radio, GPS, map, atlas). Do not attempt to legislate that away from me simply because some idiots already ignore existing laws. Do you really think those same idiots won't ignore this law, as well?
Pull your head out of there, the air is so much cleaner out here.
But it is also something you could just as well disable (either by turning off the setting, uninstalling the driving mode app, or buying a phone that doesn't include it in the first place) if you wanted to be an irresponsible jackass.Personally, I have a phone that doesn't have a driving mode and simply exercise self control to not use my phone while driving; it's really not difficult.
That you or I might be responsible, however, does not indicate that others will make the same wise decisions. As long as it can be disabled, irresponsible jackasses will disable it and carry on as they currently do; and if it can not be disabled, the law requiring it will not remain in effect for long as parents who can no longer hand their kids the phone to play games on to shut them up (and adult passengers who can no longer properly use their phones) will take swift action to ensure such a law is immediately and permanently repealed.
In short, it is currently, and will always be, voluntary and, as such, will be disabled or worked around by the very same people who ignore the current (unenforced) laws. Perhaps giving existing laws some teeth (fine and loss of license for first offense, jail time and permanent loss of license for second offense, just as an example) and actually enforcing those laws would have some effect.
That's not the only alternative; another is that we quit legislating away rights and capabilities of responsible adults and, instead, enforce some form of personal responsibility. Quit making it okay to be an irresponsible idiot by saying "if there's not law against it, it must be safe and legal; and it it's legal but not safe, it must be the government's fault because you're a perfect special snowflake, dear" and hold people liable for not using their fucking brains.
The alternative is that anything you could possibly do that might potentially harm yourself or someone else, or offend someone, or piss someone off, or hurt someone's feelings, or make someone uncomfortable, eventually becomes illegal. When that happens, you had best not breathe too loud, wear the wrong color or type of clothing, walk with the wrong kind of gait, look in one direction for too long or with the wrong expression, pay too much (or too little) for good or services (of utilize the wrong goods or services), worship the wrong God (or any at all), be the wrong gender (physically, mentally, or emotionally), have the wrong skin color, speak (EVER), or, Diety-forbid, post comments on the internet. Forget owning a phone; there are no uses for those devices that don't violate someone's right to be special.
That's the road your type has us on. Don't legislate common sense, legislate away anything someone without common sense might hurt themselves or others with. That's the mentality we don't need, the thought process that will lead to the above, and I strongly urge you to abandon it immediately. At the very least, I demand that you quit trying to force it on others; but, then, that whole mindset is all about forcing your views on others because you don't trust people to be able to think for themselves. It's a death spiral, though, because it leads to people feeling like they no longer have to think for themselves, which leads to them not thinking for themselves to the point that you actually become right.
Trust me when I say, you do not want to be right, no matter how much you might think you do. When taking phones away doesn't fix the problem (because people will just keep using them anyway), we'll end up with mandatory self-driving cars and no phones to pass the time while they do our driving for us. And that, as I illustrated above, is just the tip of that particular iceberg, which we've been chipping away at for longer than you or I have been alive.
I'll qualify that last statement by pointing out that it's been happening for longer than anyone with the mental facilities required to operate a computer and post on Slashdot (an admittedly low bar lately) has been alive, so no, I don't care how old you are, the statement holds true.
One of the things that kind of puzzles me about the idea that being "pro business" and "pro not-fucking-up-the environment" being mutually exclusive is that potentially fixing climate change could be great for industry, if it got past its short sighted myopia.
Even ignoring climate change, one industrial process' waste is another industrial process' catalyst. Capture and sell, turn that waste into a profit center, rather than paying for disposal that really turns into shipping it elsewhere for dumping, or writing off the fines for dumping as a cost of doing business.
Even smoke stack catalytic converters and filters can be scavenged for usable carbon, at a bare minimum.
What we have, however, is people at the top who can't think outside the box and have egos so huge they can't bring themselves to consult someone who can.
Increasing petroleum transport capacity increases potential petroleum supply. Supply and demand, my friend; making it cheaper to transport means it can be cheaper to sell, as well.
Now that I've answered as to AC's fallacious logic, clearly it will not work. If the market worked that way, I'd have very cheap gasoline available, instead of paying the highest prices in the country, as I'm only a 10 minute drive from several refineries.
I feel you've missed my point. The same irresponsible drivers who don't enable driving mode are already a problem; and you've already acknowledged that they will still be a problem if driving mode becomes an actual thing. Meanwhile, those of us with self control and respect for the responsibilities of every day life will also not enable it, because we just won't fuck with our phones while driving in the first place.
A bit too heavy-handed. I use my phone for navigation and music, neither of which are a distraction above and beyond a standalone GPS or the radio. I also listen for message notifications so I can pull over and deal with a potential server issue should I get a flood of them.
Do I read or reply to them while driving? No, that would be idiotic. Would I lose clients if I didn't have the ability to hear the notifications coming in so I could pull over and deal with their emergencies as they happened? Certainly.
In short, fuck you. Find a way to deal with people who have zero self control and zero respect for the responsibilities of being in control of a literal lethal weapon that does not interfere with the technological benefits afforded to those of us who have self control and respect the responsibilities of everyday life. It's "one guy can't handle it, so nobody should be allowed to have it" pansies like you who got us here in the first place; that mentality leads to a mindset of "well, it's possible for me to do it, so it must be safe".
Slashdot Mirror
1) It's not Apple's job to police Microsoft's trademarks - that's Microsoft's job.
As the curator of their own store, Apple is liable for misuse of Microsoft's trademarks within that store. It would be different if they didn't, supposedly, curate that store, but they do; allowing the misuse of Microsoft's trademark in that manner is, effectively, Apple misusing it themselves. This is especially true as Apple profits directly from it, in the form of 30% of all resulting sales.
In that sense, and as a shareholder, it is absolutely Apple's job to police Microsoft's trademarks where they may face liability for any such violations.
Every consignment shop I've sold through or bought from stakes their reputation in their ability to vet the items sold in their shop as either genuine and complete (and, therefore, worth the increased price tag) or fake/replica/incomplete/broken (and, therefore, priced lower or refused for consignment).
You're right, that's is a proper analogy and it does make a lot more sense. Apple should give a shit, because they're putting their name on it.
What happens when you've met your weight loss goal and return to a normal diet?
So, I guess the same logic as this study could tell you to never eat some of the healthiest foods we are aware of, or else you will get fat.
The question is, then, what is found in those healthy foods that helps your body process that phenylalanine, potentially rendering it beneficial (or, at least, neutral) rather than harmful? Much like fruits (not juices) contain fructose, which we know is bad for us in quantity, they're fine because that fructose is bundled with fiber, which your body utilizes in the course of processing and storing that sugar, rendering it beneficial (as a stored source of energy) rather than harmful (as a literal poison).
Except... that he's doing that... and it's not working...
I have no clue what your rant had to do with my post; I haven't seen someone miss the mark by that much in as far back as I can remember. Bravo!
My kid is misbehaving and not following my perfectly reasonable rules, so I'll have to enforce them more strictly.
Yes, fewer "warnings" (none, actually) and actual consequences.
Oh look, he's ignoring them anyway.
Then you're not enforcing them.
Oh well, I guess I TRIED, there's nothing more I can do.
Except that you didn't and there is.
If only I could impose more penalties for not obeying my rules, maybe he'd get the message and behave?
That's exactly what I'm proposing. Actual penalties for existing rules, not more rules that will just be ignored like the existing ones.
Oh, but I can't, so I guess I'll just let him do what he wants.
Methinks you've started with my argument and finished with your own.
THAT is what you sound like.
Only to those who aren't listening.
People are not obeying the current laws and even stricter enforcement of them does not make enough difference to matter, therefore the laws are INSUFFICIENT and must be changed to protect the safety of the public-at-large!
No, the enforcement is insufficient. Pulled over while texting and what, a fine? No. Take their license for a year. Oh, and actually be looking for it and pull them over for it. That is enforcement. Adding a new law with the same weak enforcement won't have any effect; people will ignore it just as they ignore every other law they don't like.
Why can't you get that through your head?
Because history has proven you wrong time and time again.
If it takes making a new law that requires all cellphones to be disabled except for 911 calls while a vehicle is in motion, then that is was has to happen, plain and simple.
And if it takes holding on to old phones that don't do that and refusing to buy phones affected by the new law until manufacturers lobby to have it repealed to save their businesses, that's what people will do, plain and simple.
If it takes requiring no cellphone be turned on while a vehicle is not parked, then that is what has to happen.
No, that's actually been tried. It was proposed in California in 2008, and at the national level in 2013 and 2015. It was shot down all 3 times for the exact reasons I keep stating. Enforcement. They can't (or don't) enforce current laws, which would be effective enough if they did; a new unenforced law won't fix the problem.
SOMETHING has to change or the problem won't go away!
We actually agree on this point.
Continuing to do things the same way over and over again is the textbook definition of 'insane'.
We also agree on this point; you're simply applying a flawed interpretation. Adding unenforced (or unenforceable) law on top of unenforced law is... what? Doing the same thing, the same way, over and over again. What I'm proposing is that we keep doing the thing we're currently doing, but change how we do it. For starters, give the existing laws real consequences; not fines, but jail time and loss of license. Then, actually pull people over for it. You know, enforce it. Without that, it might as we ll not be on the books in the first place.
You don't like it, GO YELL AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SCREWING WITH THEIR PHONES WHILE DRIVING
Well, wouldn't ya know, I actually already do.
NOT PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO DON'T AND WANT THEM TO STOP DOING IT!
Pot, meet Kettle.
The difference between you and me? You're proposing something that history has repeatedly and consistently shown to be ineffective, while I'm proposing something that has re
BLM needs to, first, target the majority of Black Lives that are taken by other Black Lives. It's not a racist viewpoint, it's a fact: most Black Lives are taken by Black men.
The Black community needs to no longer be known for their willingness to murder, in cold blood, people they should perceive as being on the "same side"; only then will all the groups commonly thought to be "the enemy" of the Black People be able to interact with them on level ground. Yes, the problem is caused by a very small portion of the Black community. That does not negate the damage it does to that community as a whole.
To put it another way, consider the following: The number of White cops who shoot Black men in cold blood is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men. The number of White men who snap and go on shooting sprees is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men. The number of White men who actively participate in the systemic racism I keep hearing about is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men; the rest of us are just here as a matter of fact and we need the Black community to help us change it as much as they need us to help them change it.
If reporting (on both sides of the issue) is to be believed, if you were to put all of the White men and all of the Black men who are actually part of the problem in a room together, you'd note two things: A) There would be more Black men than White men in that room, by at least a factor of two and B) the problem would solve itself; the lone survivor of the ensuing fight wouldn't be able to cause any notable issues.
Why reporting on both sides? Because both sides have bias and considering data from both sides helps to remove some of that bias. The only other thing we have is gut feeling and, well, gut feeling is what drove us here in the first place. We'd better start actually looking at that data soon if we're going to fix this.
Do I benefit from my Whilte-maleness? Almost certainly. Can I enumerate those benefits? No. Do I seek them out? No. Do I feel guilty about it? Hell no. Why not? Because I get attacked just for being White and male, for the "privilege" afforded to me by other people, which I do not seek out for myself.
Yes, I have the privilege of being told I am part of the problem, when I am likely one of the few who can actually see what the root of that problem is and has ideas that might actually work to start solving it and undo some of the damage.
How dare I, a White cis male, purport to understand the problem, though, right? After all, I can't possibly understand the suffering, they tell me. And they're right, I can't, I'm sure. But they're also wrong; one need not understand the suffering in order to understand the cause of the suffering. In fact, one who is suffering is less likely to understand the cause; it's why even trained doctors go to the doctor. You can't treat yourself when your head is clouded by disease.
And yes, systemic racism in this country is a disease.
As far as I can tell you fundamentally agree that Trump and Bernies plans were racist.
How is telling people who are here illegally to GTFO and only come back when they're willing to follow established legal channels to get a work visa and participate in the tax system that supports local and federal infrastructure racist?
Let me guess, because people born here won't be hit by it? First of all, at worst that's nationalist, not racist; I'll remind you that people of all races are born here and, if born here, are natural citizens and will not be hit by this. Second, we're talking about millions of people not paying taxes while, at the same time using the services paid for by those taxes, which drives up budget requirements across the board and increases your taxes.
That's why we have these laws, period. Trump is just going to actually enforce them now.
I'm more worried about what he's going to do to international relations with our current allies than what he's going to do with people who shouldn't be here in the first place. You should be, too.
So we should be fixing the 3rd-world shitholes on our own land before we go try and fix them overseas. Let's figure out what works before we spread the disease.
The people I am referring to are the asshats who read and reply to text messages, tweets, and Facebook posts while driving. Driving mode would, ostensibly, disable that functionality. How does that make it more convenient for them?
To be clear, yes, votes are cast (in sextuplicate) on the 19th (actually, in the week following the 19th), as well, and attached to the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment. The seventh Certificate of Ascertainment should have already been turned in to the Archivist (AotUS), also including that state's proposed Electoral Votes, prior to the meeting on the 19th.
And no, they don't all get together to vote; they gather at the state level and cast their votes during the following week, to be turned in by the 28th.
Funny, I checked after I wrote that and yes, your own resource does, in fact, say as much. Did you even read it?
Funny, CNN is reporting Electoral results (incomplete as not all states have turned in their votes yet) in addition to popular vote results.
If all of this noise is about Hillary losing the election based on popular vote, it's all fucking wrong; she won that by nearly 2 million votes. Only 522 of the 538 Electoral votes are in and the states have until December 19th to get them in; the remaining 16 uncast votes, however, are not enough to swing things in Hillary's favor.
Hillary supporters with mod points. You know what? She still lost, so moderate away. Before you waste your time, though, how about some full disclosure: I'd be no less happy if Hillary had won; they're both shit.
Don't let facts cloud your judgment, though.
Oh, bloody fucking Hell. The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by the People. Our votes, whether paper or electronic ballot, only serve to tell the EC who we want in office, and Trump lost that vote by nearly 2 million votes. The Electoral College does note vote the same way we do and how they cast their votes is consistent across jurisdictions; they all vote the same way.
There is no "Trump won because voting machines were hacked" because Trump lost the popular vote election where those machines were used. It is trivial to recount the 538 Electoral votes and I'm sure it's been done time and again, with each member of the Electoral College confirming their votes multiple times throughout the process. It would be exceedingly difficult to hack that process in any meaningful way; you'd have to convince the entire Electoral College that they voted for someone they did not.
I guess... it could be done with drugs.
To clarify the fact that I don't fuck with my phone while driving, the sentence beginning with "They don't affect me," should end with "before I start driving."
I don't make ANY laws
Nobody claimed you did.
and I don't ADVOCATE making laws for everything
No, and nobody claimed that, either. What you miss, however, is my point: what you're advocating for is precisely the mindset that leads to laws for everything, whether that is your intent or not.
You're probably one of the entitled jackasses who keeps screwing with his phone while he's driving anyway.
If you had the reading comprehension of the 5 year old you allude to, you'd have noted the following, in my initial response to you:
I use my phone for navigation and music, neither of which are a distraction above and beyond a standalone GPS or the radio. I also listen for message notifications so I can pull over and deal with a potential server issue should I get a flood of them.
Do I read or reply to them while driving? No, that would be idiotic.
Advocating for legislation preventing responsible thinking adults from using a device in a reasonable and non-distracting manner simply because some idiots (who ignore existing laws and will, in all likelihood, also ignore your proposed law, rendering it completely ineffective at its stated goal while being a massive pain in the ass for everyone else) can't control themselves is the exact mindset that leads to laws for everything. Again, it teaches people that the mindset of "if it's not illegal it must be safe; and if it's legal and not safe it must be the government's fault" is okay, where I believe we can both agree it is not.
To wit, I fully support "don't fuck with your phone while driving" laws. They don't affect me, I fuck with my phone to connect it to my car's audio system and get music started (at which point I fuck with my car's audio system to skip songs I don't want to hear, much as I'd fuck with it to tune stations) and, if necessary, to set up navigation; then, I leave it tucked away in the center console, out of view. I would lose both of those functions, and I would lose the notification alerts alluded to previously which, in turn, would cause me to lose clients a large chunk of my ongoing income, if I were legally required to turn it off. I'll also point out that I would spend more time distracted flipping through radio stations so effectively "skip" songs I don't want to hear and either have my view partially blocked by a standalone GPS or be directing a large portion of my attention to a paper map or atlas if I needed navigation.
My phone, the way I use it, actually helps me direct more of my attention to the road than would be allowed by the devices it replaces (radio, GPS, map, atlas). Do not attempt to legislate that away from me simply because some idiots already ignore existing laws. Do you really think those same idiots won't ignore this law, as well?
Pull your head out of there, the air is so much cleaner out here.
Indeed, we do. The only thing worse than an idiot is a fucking idiot.
But it is also something you could just as well disable (either by turning off the setting, uninstalling the driving mode app, or buying a phone that doesn't include it in the first place) if you wanted to be an irresponsible jackass.Personally, I have a phone that doesn't have a driving mode and simply exercise self control to not use my phone while driving; it's really not difficult.
That you or I might be responsible, however, does not indicate that others will make the same wise decisions. As long as it can be disabled, irresponsible jackasses will disable it and carry on as they currently do; and if it can not be disabled, the law requiring it will not remain in effect for long as parents who can no longer hand their kids the phone to play games on to shut them up (and adult passengers who can no longer properly use their phones) will take swift action to ensure such a law is immediately and permanently repealed.
In short, it is currently, and will always be, voluntary and, as such, will be disabled or worked around by the very same people who ignore the current (unenforced) laws. Perhaps giving existing laws some teeth (fine and loss of license for first offense, jail time and permanent loss of license for second offense, just as an example) and actually enforcing those laws would have some effect.
That's not the only alternative; another is that we quit legislating away rights and capabilities of responsible adults and, instead, enforce some form of personal responsibility. Quit making it okay to be an irresponsible idiot by saying "if there's not law against it, it must be safe and legal; and it it's legal but not safe, it must be the government's fault because you're a perfect special snowflake, dear" and hold people liable for not using their fucking brains.
The alternative is that anything you could possibly do that might potentially harm yourself or someone else, or offend someone, or piss someone off, or hurt someone's feelings, or make someone uncomfortable, eventually becomes illegal. When that happens, you had best not breathe too loud, wear the wrong color or type of clothing, walk with the wrong kind of gait, look in one direction for too long or with the wrong expression, pay too much (or too little) for good or services (of utilize the wrong goods or services), worship the wrong God (or any at all), be the wrong gender (physically, mentally, or emotionally), have the wrong skin color, speak (EVER), or, Diety-forbid, post comments on the internet. Forget owning a phone; there are no uses for those devices that don't violate someone's right to be special.
That's the road your type has us on. Don't legislate common sense, legislate away anything someone without common sense might hurt themselves or others with. That's the mentality we don't need, the thought process that will lead to the above, and I strongly urge you to abandon it immediately. At the very least, I demand that you quit trying to force it on others; but, then, that whole mindset is all about forcing your views on others because you don't trust people to be able to think for themselves. It's a death spiral, though, because it leads to people feeling like they no longer have to think for themselves, which leads to them not thinking for themselves to the point that you actually become right.
Trust me when I say, you do not want to be right, no matter how much you might think you do. When taking phones away doesn't fix the problem (because people will just keep using them anyway), we'll end up with mandatory self-driving cars and no phones to pass the time while they do our driving for us. And that, as I illustrated above, is just the tip of that particular iceberg, which we've been chipping away at for longer than you or I have been alive.
I'll qualify that last statement by pointing out that it's been happening for longer than anyone with the mental facilities required to operate a computer and post on Slashdot (an admittedly low bar lately) has been alive, so no, I don't care how old you are, the statement holds true.
One of the things that kind of puzzles me about the idea that being "pro business" and "pro not-fucking-up-the environment" being mutually exclusive is that potentially fixing climate change could be great for industry, if it got past its short sighted myopia.
Even ignoring climate change, one industrial process' waste is another industrial process' catalyst. Capture and sell, turn that waste into a profit center, rather than paying for disposal that really turns into shipping it elsewhere for dumping, or writing off the fines for dumping as a cost of doing business.
Even smoke stack catalytic converters and filters can be scavenged for usable carbon, at a bare minimum.
What we have, however, is people at the top who can't think outside the box and have egos so huge they can't bring themselves to consult someone who can.
Increasing petroleum transport capacity increases potential petroleum supply. Supply and demand, my friend; making it cheaper to transport means it can be cheaper to sell, as well.
Now that I've answered as to AC's fallacious logic, clearly it will not work. If the market worked that way, I'd have very cheap gasoline available, instead of paying the highest prices in the country, as I'm only a 10 minute drive from several refineries.
I feel you've missed my point. The same irresponsible drivers who don't enable driving mode are already a problem; and you've already acknowledged that they will still be a problem if driving mode becomes an actual thing. Meanwhile, those of us with self control and respect for the responsibilities of every day life will also not enable it, because we just won't fuck with our phones while driving in the first place.
I'm pretty sure I just witnessed someone trying to argue "laws have proven ineffective, let's make more laws".
A bit too heavy-handed. I use my phone for navigation and music, neither of which are a distraction above and beyond a standalone GPS or the radio. I also listen for message notifications so I can pull over and deal with a potential server issue should I get a flood of them.
Do I read or reply to them while driving? No, that would be idiotic. Would I lose clients if I didn't have the ability to hear the notifications coming in so I could pull over and deal with their emergencies as they happened? Certainly.
In short, fuck you. Find a way to deal with people who have zero self control and zero respect for the responsibilities of being in control of a literal lethal weapon that does not interfere with the technological benefits afforded to those of us who have self control and respect the responsibilities of everyday life. It's "one guy can't handle it, so nobody should be allowed to have it" pansies like you who got us here in the first place; that mentality leads to a mindset of "well, it's possible for me to do it, so it must be safe".