If you think that dialing your cell phone, reading and/or composing text messages, etc. on your cell phone is acceptable, you are a complete moron and should not be allowed to drive. Nevertheless, people do it. Likewise for driving with a map. Ergo, Leenks' point still stands: being able to navigate by audible directions >> reading a map while driving.
As far as pulling over on the side of the road...I remember driving through the bad part of DC one time at about one o'clock in the morning because we were lost. You can pull over to read your map if you want, but that's a good way to get shot. So once again, being able to navigate by audible directions >> reading a map while driving.
Then stop buying them from shady Russian web sites you find out about in unsolicited e-mails. I, for one, have used my cell phone in an emergency...more than once. Guess what? It worked fine.
So we^Wthe government decides we^Wthey want to jam cell phone signals in cars. That's just awesome (/sarc, just in case that's not already obvious). Sure, it solves the problem of idiots talking on their phones while driving, but creates several new ones. For starters, my Android has the Google Navigator on it, which I use when I am traveling (in cars, gasp!) to help me find my way in new places. Why? Because having a route read to you from a phone is lot safer than trying to read a map or directions from a piece of paper in your lap (or worse yet, trying to read tiny letters on street signs hidden behind trees at intersections in unfamiliar towns). If you jam the cell phone signal, Google Navigator won't work anymore. Sure, I could just bring a Tom-Tom or Garmin GPS, but 1) I don't own one, and 2) why should I have to bring two electronic devices on a trip (and associated chargers, etc.)?
The problem is that we, as a society, have become so risk-adverse that we are obsessed with making everything "safe". Unfortunately, like computer security, safety is not a destination; it's a process (wait...a computer analogy for an automobile story on/.? That's got to be either illegal or immoral...). Ultimately, the only way to keep idiots from killing themselves and others in cars is to remove the idiot/driver from the equation, and we aren't there yet. Yes, distracted drivers talking or texting on their cell phones will get into accidents, and will sometimes kill people. However, even if there were no cell phones in cars, people would still be distracted while driving, either by the other people in the car, by the song on the radio, thinking about what happened at work that day, what's for dinner when they get home, the argument they just had with their spouse, etc. You can't eliminate distractions, as long as there's a human behind the wheel. So the *best* thing we can do is pay attention ourselves, and drive defensively. I can't tell you how much I discovered I was "tuning out" while driving before I started riding a motorcycle. Once I shed the cage around me and started driving like my life depended upon me being acutely aware of what was going on around me -- because on a motorcycle, it DOES -- I was amazed at how often you can predict the idiotic things people are going to do before they actually do them; it was almost like having ESP. Unfortunately, street tanks like an H2 or Avalanche teach people that size == invulnerability, and so people tend to become passengers in their cars, even when *they* are the ones behind the wheel.
Really? Perhaps I am the wrong shade of Libertarian, then. Review my comment history here on/.: I despise both the GWB administration and the current BO administration because both of them have trampled on civil rights. Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, the TSA and their Gestapo-esque checkpoints -- excuse me, "security screenings" -- are all precisely what motivated me to abandon the Republican party in favor of a political party that at least *claims* to believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually mean something.
Depends upon your definition of "small". If you want to fly a typical single-engine, piston powered private airplane, then no, they don't apply. I've had my pilot's license since '91, and you don't have to go through any of this B.S. to board such an airplane. However, about two years ago, DHS got their collective skivvies in a bunch about about many of the private business jets -- some of which, like the Boeing Business Jet, are essentially just custom airliners sold to private owners -- and attempted to get...FAA?...Congress?...to enact a rule requiring passengers on any private airplane that weighs more than 12,500 pounds (a number that was chosen because of an antiquated FAA definition that any airplane weighing more than 12,500 pounds is a "large" airplane) to be screened like airline passengers. I don't recall if that rule was ever put into effect or not, but I know that a lot of private pilots (including myself), corporate flight departments and various bizjet pilot organizations were up in arms over that proposal.
Why do you think they screen airplanes? I imagine it has had *some* deterrent effect on would-be terrorists, but Flight 93 and the shoe bomber have shown what the best, most effective deterrent is in the post 9/11 era. The only reason TSA does what it does now, IMHO, is so the government can show the sheeple that it is Doing Something.
Since when did your right to that comfy, warm, snuggly, "big-brother is watching out for you" feeling trump my right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search? Don't like the risk of someone sneaking a weapon on board the airplane? Don't fly. Flying on an aircraft isn't a right...
...these are necessary to protect us from our selves...
Care to expand upon that argument? First, I seriously doubt that an x-ray backscatter scanner is going to stop someone who is determined to enact violence on an airplane, as has been argued enough times already in the comments to this article. Ergo, these machines are not necessary. Second, given that the machines are likely to not be effective, I put a whole lot more faith on the ability of myself and the other passengers on the airplane to take down anyone with hostile intent than TSA, so your protection argument goes out the window, too.
People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
You must be new here. That argument was thrown out by the courts when the 5th Amendment was written: failure to testify against yourself shall not be used as evidence of your own guilt (paraphrased, but you can look it up yourself, if you're interested). Therefore, whether or not I choose to hide anything is not proof that I actually have anything to hide. Furthermore, as (again) has already been beaten to death here on/., if the government seriously wants to pin something on you, they will. Have you really never, ever done anything that was embarrassing? Or that could be embarrassing if taken out of context? Really? Even if that were true, what are the odds that our ruling class will ever be as transparent with us as they want us to be with them? I have no desire for the balance of power in this country to be that lopsided.
If ya wanna fly, deal with it. If not, get there another way.
You do realize that same argument could be thrown back at you, right? I don't want to be strip-searched, even electronically. It is a violation of my privacy, my civil rights, and perhaps even my religious beliefs. Therefore, YOU are just going to have to accept the risk that someone could conceivably sneak a weapon on board an airliner. If ya wanna fly, deal with it. If not, get there another way.
Not sure why so many replies are fixated on the pat down and junk touching though. Sounds like people are going to miss it if these scanners are put in place.
Won't do me any good. I still have to go through Canada to get to the rest of the country, and IIRC, Customs has been using backscatter x-ray for a couple of years now. While I did hear a story about a guy walking on water a little while back, I'm not to jazzed about my prospects of hiking a couple thousand miles over the Pacific Ocean to get...well...anywhere else.
It's not a terribly difficult question to answer: it is invasive because it is essentially a strip-search, only without the decency to call itself what it is, and it is ineffective because the backscatter x-ray machines are unable to penetrate skin, therefore allowing contraband to be concealed in, ahem, bodily orifices without detection. (source: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/safety/content/article/113619/1521147 ). HTH.
Show me the ultralight that will take me from my home in Anchorage to Maui and I'll be all over it. For that matter, it doesn't have to be an ultralight; I'm a licensed pilot. Show me an LSA that will make it from Anchorage to Maui, and I'll be all over it.
These scanners were initially installed during the Bush administration. How is it Obama's fault?
Because Obama was elected in 2008, 2010 is almost gone and he has taken no steps to remove them during the intervening two years? No, implementation wasn't Obama's fault, but since he has left them in place -- and he has had ample time to remove them, if he really believed they were ineffective and/or a violation of civil liberties -- then I'd argue he shares the blame for the fact that they are still in use.
I didn't believe all of Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign rhetoric in 2008, but when he was elected, I hoped I was wrong. Unfortunately, I've never been so disappointed to be proven correct.
Yeah, there was a typo. sed "s/Text to speech/Speech to text/". What I was trying to say is that speech to text does not fully replace a touch screen interface, since you can't launch apps, etc. by voice command. Yet.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people to bring about their own demise. IIRC, it's possible to die of hypothermia even in relatively mild conditions, if there's a little wind and you manage to soak your clothing (for example, by falling into a creek or pond).
It may be that the iPhone is less finicky, or you may indeed have been lucky enough to select gloves that work well with a capacitive screen. My leather motorcycle gloves, however, don't work at all with my HTC Hero. I haven't tried any other gloves, nor have I tried any other touch screens...although, I wonder if perhaps it could be due to the fact that I have one of those protective films over my screen?
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that dialing your cell phone, reading and/or composing text messages, etc. on your cell phone is acceptable, you are a complete moron and should not be allowed to drive. Nevertheless, people do it. Likewise for driving with a map. Ergo, Leenks' point still stands: being able to navigate by audible directions >> reading a map while driving.
As far as pulling over on the side of the road...I remember driving through the bad part of DC one time at about one o'clock in the morning because we were lost. You can pull over to read your map if you want, but that's a good way to get shot. So once again, being able to navigate by audible directions >> reading a map while driving.
Then stop buying them from shady Russian web sites you find out about in unsolicited e-mails. I, for one, have used my cell phone in an emergency...more than once. Guess what? It worked fine.
How far are we going to let the Nanny State go?
/.? That's got to be either illegal or immoral...). Ultimately, the only way to keep idiots from killing themselves and others in cars is to remove the idiot/driver from the equation, and we aren't there yet. Yes, distracted drivers talking or texting on their cell phones will get into accidents, and will sometimes kill people. However, even if there were no cell phones in cars, people would still be distracted while driving, either by the other people in the car, by the song on the radio, thinking about what happened at work that day, what's for dinner when they get home, the argument they just had with their spouse, etc. You can't eliminate distractions, as long as there's a human behind the wheel. So the *best* thing we can do is pay attention ourselves, and drive defensively. I can't tell you how much I discovered I was "tuning out" while driving before I started riding a motorcycle. Once I shed the cage around me and started driving like my life depended upon me being acutely aware of what was going on around me -- because on a motorcycle, it DOES -- I was amazed at how often you can predict the idiotic things people are going to do before they actually do them; it was almost like having ESP. Unfortunately, street tanks like an H2 or Avalanche teach people that size == invulnerability, and so people tend to become passengers in their cars, even when *they* are the ones behind the wheel.
So we^Wthe government decides we^Wthey want to jam cell phone signals in cars. That's just awesome (/sarc, just in case that's not already obvious). Sure, it solves the problem of idiots talking on their phones while driving, but creates several new ones. For starters, my Android has the Google Navigator on it, which I use when I am traveling (in cars, gasp!) to help me find my way in new places. Why? Because having a route read to you from a phone is lot safer than trying to read a map or directions from a piece of paper in your lap (or worse yet, trying to read tiny letters on street signs hidden behind trees at intersections in unfamiliar towns). If you jam the cell phone signal, Google Navigator won't work anymore. Sure, I could just bring a Tom-Tom or Garmin GPS, but 1) I don't own one, and 2) why should I have to bring two electronic devices on a trip (and associated chargers, etc.)?
The problem is that we, as a society, have become so risk-adverse that we are obsessed with making everything "safe". Unfortunately, like computer security, safety is not a destination; it's a process (wait...a computer analogy for an automobile story on
Really? Perhaps I am the wrong shade of Libertarian, then. Review my comment history here on /.: I despise both the GWB administration and the current BO administration because both of them have trampled on civil rights. Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, the TSA and their Gestapo-esque checkpoints -- excuse me, "security screenings" -- are all precisely what motivated me to abandon the Republican party in favor of a political party that at least *claims* to believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually mean something.
Including the fat one in the tie? I take it you didn't RTFA...
...but it sure beats driving.
Depends upon what you drive. I'd gladly take my V-Strom on vacation, if I could get anywhere from Alaska and back in two weeks' time...
Depends upon your definition of "small". If you want to fly a typical single-engine, piston powered private airplane, then no, they don't apply. I've had my pilot's license since '91, and you don't have to go through any of this B.S. to board such an airplane. However, about two years ago, DHS got their collective skivvies in a bunch about about many of the private business jets -- some of which, like the Boeing Business Jet, are essentially just custom airliners sold to private owners -- and attempted to get...FAA?...Congress?...to enact a rule requiring passengers on any private airplane that weighs more than 12,500 pounds (a number that was chosen because of an antiquated FAA definition that any airplane weighing more than 12,500 pounds is a "large" airplane) to be screened like airline passengers. I don't recall if that rule was ever put into effect or not, but I know that a lot of private pilots (including myself), corporate flight departments and various bizjet pilot organizations were up in arms over that proposal.
Why do you think they screen airplanes? I imagine it has had *some* deterrent effect on would-be terrorists, but Flight 93 and the shoe bomber have shown what the best, most effective deterrent is in the post 9/11 era. The only reason TSA does what it does now, IMHO, is so the government can show the sheeple that it is Doing Something.
Yes, yes...I know that's what he meant...but pointing out the non-obvious alternative was (IMHO) a lot funnier.
I used to fly a PA-28-180. Sweet airplane.. :)
Since when did your right to that comfy, warm, snuggly, "big-brother is watching out for you" feeling trump my right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search? Don't like the risk of someone sneaking a weapon on board the airplane? Don't fly. Flying on an aircraft isn't a right...
...these are necessary to protect us from our selves...
Care to expand upon that argument? First, I seriously doubt that an x-ray backscatter scanner is going to stop someone who is determined to enact violence on an airplane, as has been argued enough times already in the comments to this article. Ergo, these machines are not necessary. Second, given that the machines are likely to not be effective, I put a whole lot more faith on the ability of myself and the other passengers on the airplane to take down anyone with hostile intent than TSA, so your protection argument goes out the window, too.
People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
You must be new here. That argument was thrown out by the courts when the 5th Amendment was written: failure to testify against yourself shall not be used as evidence of your own guilt (paraphrased, but you can look it up yourself, if you're interested). Therefore, whether or not I choose to hide anything is not proof that I actually have anything to hide. Furthermore, as (again) has already been beaten to death here on /., if the government seriously wants to pin something on you, they will. Have you really never, ever done anything that was embarrassing? Or that could be embarrassing if taken out of context? Really? Even if that were true, what are the odds that our ruling class will ever be as transparent with us as they want us to be with them? I have no desire for the balance of power in this country to be that lopsided.
If ya wanna fly, deal with it. If not, get there another way.
You do realize that same argument could be thrown back at you, right? I don't want to be strip-searched, even electronically. It is a violation of my privacy, my civil rights, and perhaps even my religious beliefs. Therefore, YOU are just going to have to accept the risk that someone could conceivably sneak a weapon on board an airliner. If ya wanna fly, deal with it. If not, get there another way. Not sure why so many replies are fixated on the pat down and junk touching though. Sounds like people are going to miss it if these scanners are put in place.
Won't do me any good. I still have to go through Canada to get to the rest of the country, and IIRC, Customs has been using backscatter x-ray for a couple of years now. While I did hear a story about a guy walking on water a little while back, I'm not to jazzed about my prospects of hiking a couple thousand miles over the Pacific Ocean to get...well...anywhere else.
It's not a terribly difficult question to answer: it is invasive because it is essentially a strip-search, only without the decency to call itself what it is, and it is ineffective because the backscatter x-ray machines are unable to penetrate skin, therefore allowing contraband to be concealed in, ahem, bodily orifices without detection. (source: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/safety/content/article/113619/1521147 ). HTH.
Sure, as soon as we get tangible high-speed cross-continental rail.
And as soon as we get that, TSA will be screening it as well.
It sucks to have short legs, doesn't it? ;-)
Show me the ultralight that will take me from my home in Anchorage to Maui and I'll be all over it. For that matter, it doesn't have to be an ultralight; I'm a licensed pilot. Show me an LSA that will make it from Anchorage to Maui, and I'll be all over it.
These scanners were initially installed during the Bush administration. How is it Obama's fault?
Because Obama was elected in 2008, 2010 is almost gone and he has taken no steps to remove them during the intervening two years? No, implementation wasn't Obama's fault, but since he has left them in place -- and he has had ample time to remove them, if he really believed they were ineffective and/or a violation of civil liberties -- then I'd argue he shares the blame for the fact that they are still in use.
I didn't believe all of Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign rhetoric in 2008, but when he was elected, I hoped I was wrong. Unfortunately, I've never been so disappointed to be proven correct.
Lol, point taken.
Yeah, there was a typo. sed "s/Text to speech/Speech to text/". What I was trying to say is that speech to text does not fully replace a touch screen interface, since you can't launch apps, etc. by voice command. Yet.
You truly deserved a "funny" mod point or two for that :)
I'll try it, thanks.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people to bring about their own demise. IIRC, it's possible to die of hypothermia even in relatively mild conditions, if there's a little wind and you manage to soak your clothing (for example, by falling into a creek or pond).
It may be that the iPhone is less finicky, or you may indeed have been lucky enough to select gloves that work well with a capacitive screen. My leather motorcycle gloves, however, don't work at all with my HTC Hero. I haven't tried any other gloves, nor have I tried any other touch screens...although, I wonder if perhaps it could be due to the fact that I have one of those protective films over my screen?
Text to speech on my Hero doesn't let you change from Navigator to phone, nor start the text messaging app though.