Thread: The government still knows better than you

That shows how stupid those people are.

Scramble (as in jam) as GSM phone...
How?

By transmitting GSM type signals...
IE - hi-frequency radiation.... ??

So we have finally confirmed the 2-decade-old strong suggestion that GSM will cause/trigger cancers etc (as opposed to CDMA etc).
Let's see them mount GSM-type radiators in vehicles etc.


Honestly, this stuff is as stupid and moronic as (alleged) stories about people tin-foiling their rooms to stop cell-phone "interception". (Even that doesn't take too much tech thinking!)


PS - I just read on....
It's from a blog. Stiff farken poo.
And it has to do with distractions.
Like billboards (ha - try to ban those!).
And flesh.
And movements.
And... passengers....
(Or should I read it again.)

Stop supporting moronic media. Let their market die out naturally.
(I know! Frustrating isn't it!)

has it struck anyone else that this is similar to the nasa-pen situation(nasa spent millions on a pen that could write in space, russians used a pencil..)?

enforcing the idea of non-distracted drivers would, imo, be a better idea, though less rough...

like the idea of putting down cell phones instead of texting, or (i know it is a long shot) parents taking control of their teens, and enforcing them to not allow them to use their cell phones while driving--my brother has come to hate me for this(and soon my sister will)-- i have all but crushed his phone after hearing he's texting while driving..

Texting? Is that still done?
Surely voice recognition is being used. (Get the Dragon!)

Or maybe someone should invent a way of being able to verbalise messages rather than having to convert to something written - you know, like they did with records & tapes instead of using paper.

I wonder if there is a way of adding microphone to a texting device? Somehow that is digitised and transmitted to the text receiver and stored for reproduction later....

I'd better start my own blog. Don't be surprised if you read about this in the newspapers etc soon!

Originally Posted by OldSpark

Texting? Is that still done?
Surely voice recognition is being used. (Get the Dragon!)

Or maybe someone should invent a way of being able to verbalise messages rather than having to convert to something written - you know, like they did with records & tapes instead of using paper.

I wonder if there is a way of adding microphone to a texting device? Somehow that is digitised and transmitted to the text receiver and stored for reproduction later...

Telespeak.....oO? Like in 1984

Ok a real comment; handcent(android) can text to speak and speach to text input for sms.

Is there a way to read incomming sms on your car pc?

not that i know of.. i think sync does it though..

I was describing what I call a "mobile phone" - a portable version of the voice-telephone invented over 100 years ago.

I was gonna call its voice-storage facility "noise-mail", but then I corrected noise to voice, and I couldn't quite stoop low enough to call it voicemail.


But people miss RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury) else must be so bluddy bored....
I assume that is why they spend more time and money exchanging texts rather than using the inbuilt microphone and conveying more, faster (and in my experience, usually a heck of a lot cheaper; oh - and less illegal!).

I understand the whole big brother aspect, but the facts are that drivers using their phones in cars are distracted, often dangerously. There's solid evidence to back that up.

Further, there are a fair number of fatalities associated with distracted driving. And, we all know that the laws that are on the books to address this are difficult to enforce and don't prevent the distraction. Even handsfree operations still lead to distraction.

There's a potential technological solution that the gov. is researching that could significantly reduce the hazard. Those are the facts.

The ramifications are what is the issue. I heard two main arguments here- that this is a restriction on individual personal freedom and that there are other, bigger problems they should go after.

On the personal freedom argument, no, you don't have the right to drive distracted just because you don't think you ARE distracted anymore than you have the right to operate a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol even if you think you aren't affected when you drive. The issue sounds different only because we all know that drinking and driving is a willful and stupid act that endangers others. Surprise! So does phone operation. It just doesn't last for the whole trip. The authorities are perfectly within their rights to try and restrict distractions if possible while you operate a vehicle.

As for "they need to work on bigger problems," here's one that has a technological solution that is pretty straightforward and works kind of like the no-video emergency brake sensor in HU's and nav systems. It is probably pretty easy to get firms to develop modules that will do this if they think it will go into millions of cars. If the distracted fatalities number is cut in half, that's 5% fewer fatalities per year or 25,000 people over a decade.

I don't like gov't intervention anymore than you do, but this is an identified problem that causes fatalities that has a possible technological solution. I'd be upset if the Feds weren't pursuing this in another area like....airline safety, for example.

You guys need different arguments to defeat this one. The best is that the first car with it installed will suffer lower sales.

BTW, similar arguments were made against airbags, seat belts and the third light on the rear deck of the car.

Originally Posted by soundman98

has it struck anyone else that this is similar to the nasa-pen situation(nasa spent millions on a pen that could write in space, russians used a pencil..)?

Actually, that's an old wives tale.

NASA did NOT contract with Fisher to make the Space Pen...they invented it on their own, using their own R&D dollars. No federal funds were used to develop it.

Both NASA and the Soviets used pencils...until the Fisher Space Pen was invented, and they offered it to NASA to try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_p...space_programs

As to the OP, I agree that cell phones are a distraction...

but no more so than...

...trying to see what song is currently playing on my Satellite Radio
...trying to change the station quickly before I hear one more note of that damn "Firefly" song
...adjusting the temp of seat-heater - because my buns are getting too toasty
...having a heated discussion a friend sitting next to me about the current political climate
...Billboard!!! Gun Show? This weekend? Did you see what the hours were???
...etc, etc, etc.

Where's the line?

Originally Posted by Bugbyte

I don't like gov't intervention anymore than you do, but this is an identified problem that causes fatalities that has a possible technological solution. I'd be upset if the Feds weren't pursuing this in another area like....airline safety, for example.

I think many have nailed it so far, so long as used properly there are other existing distractions that far exceed this one that cause just as many, possibly more, injuries/fatalities. It's not that they're setting a law to keep someone driving under the influence from doing so, or punishing them for doing so. It seems more the equivalent to making so you couldn't have been on your couch under the influence with a specific beer brand no different than the others a day prior and be allowed to drive for the next week.

BTW, similar arguments were made against airbags, seat belts and the third light on the rear deck of the car.

I don't recall them being that similar, the argument for those wasn't that it was infringing on personal accountability, but price-tag for both the consumers and the manufacturer. Which is where side-airbags still reside is it not? I don't think that's been forciably put on the manufacturers yet has it?
Were it a mandate for the manufacturer to have to have in-built hands-free as a standard (or something on a similar line) by year such-and-such, that I could personally go for.