Active Topics

 


Page 3 of 9 12 3 45 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
Fargus's Avatar
Fargus is offline Fargus
2009-12-22 , 15:49
Posts: 1,217 | Thanked: 446 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Bedfordshire, UK
#21
Originally Posted by fatalsaint View Post
Immature??? Why? Because we have a sense of humor and can poke fun at serious issues without getting our panties in a bunch?? .

I second the no laws - but the insurance companies abandoning you. That's just win . (only if, however, the insurance company was smart enough to write it into their agreement .. )
I think you'll find that comes under the general clause of not paying attention - split attention is sufficient to cover in both US and European laws. Whilst some locales might be exempt at present most companies will find a way to remove liability.
 
Fargus's Avatar
Fargus is offline Fargus
2009-12-22 , 17:11
Posts: 1,217 | Thanked: 446 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Bedfordshire, UK
#22
Originally Posted by OrangeBox View Post
you people are such immature as it is generally expected from linux geeks
I believe you have a moan elsewhere that the forum is full of people that are insulting others? Surely this post comes under that too!
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fargus For This Useful Post:
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2009-12-22 , 17:18
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#23
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
What gets me is all these "do-gooders" who think THEY know what's best for you.

I can fly a jet, correlate targeting data, do complex geometry and algebra in my head, scan my instruments, and look around my proximity, keep up with the jabber in my headset, and not crash. Does that mean that everyone can do this? No, of course not. Now, just because not everyone can multitask in such manner, does it mean that we shouldn't fly like this?

It's all about taking responsibility in what you do and the effect of your actions that results from your choices.

Be careful of what you wish for onto others, Dak. Karma is a Bish.
Laws are not designed around the abilities of a few.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
That One Guy is offline That One Guy
2009-12-22 , 18:03
Posts: 377 | Thanked: 97 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ US
#24
Agreed. Laws are not designed around the abilities of the few.

But at the same time, why should the few "dumb" themselves down to the ability of the masses? And I don't say that because I'm "superior" in my abilities, I'm speaking in general terms. You may be able to write fast, tight code. I can't. Should I demand that no one write code because I haven't been motivated enough to learn?

How about we have laws that every cell phone be the same in operation and look? After all, not everyone can fully use the power of the N900. Let's all have a simple cell phone with no ssh abilities, no video/audio playing capabilities (something I don't use on my N900), a small screen, and nothing but numbers on the keypad. This way everyone can use a cell phone equally and people won't have to spend too much time figuring it out, and by extension, wouldn't get into crashes when using the cell phone while driving. No? You don't want that? Why not?

Some people need to stop sticking their noses in other people's choices and how they choose to life their life.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2009-12-22 , 18:15
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#25
Several years ago a woman almost struck my then 5-year-old son with her car.

She was backing out of a parking spot, chatting on her cell phone, in a school parking lot full of small children.

"Invasive" laws are designed to protect the innocents from the idiots. That often fails to be properly considered by those believing they are inconvenienced.

I've never felt an unavoidable need to use my cell phone in a school zone. I don't have any problem focusing on my purpose at that time and then using the phone in a safer situation. I do not understand the mindset of those who fight this sort of law. That feeling that it should not be necessary doesn't take away from the fact that it is.

I lean libertarian, but I'm no extremist. So do I support cell phone restrictions?

You betcha. Keep my kids safe from the self-absorbed idiots and jerks, please. I can't always protect them.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
msa's Avatar
msa is offline msa
2009-12-22 , 18:17
Posts: 909 | Thanked: 216 times | Joined on Nov 2009 @ Bremen, Germany
#26
who uses his mobile while driving anyway?

anyone who does should seriously consider giving his driving license back.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2009-12-22 , 18:18
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#27
Originally Posted by msa View Post
who uses his mobile while driving anyway?
Far too many self-deluded people where I live, that's for sure.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
bonerp is offline bonerp
2009-12-22 , 18:26
Posts: 308 | Thanked: 118 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ UK Swindon
#28
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
Agreed. Laws are not designed around the abilities of the few.

But at the same time, why should the few "dumb" themselves down to the ability of the masses? And I don't say that because I'm "superior" in my abilities, I'm speaking in general terms. You may be able to write fast, tight code. I can't. Should I demand that no one write code because I haven't been motivated enough to learn?

How about we have laws that every cell phone be the same in operation and look? After all, not everyone can fully use the power of the N900. Let's all have a simple cell phone with no ssh abilities, no video/audio playing capabilities (something I don't use on my N900), a small screen, and nothing but numbers on the keypad. This way everyone can use a cell phone equally and people won't have to spend too much time figuring it out, and by extension, wouldn't get into crashes when using the cell phone while driving. No? You don't want that? Why not?

Some people need to stop sticking their noses in other people's choices and how they choose to life their life.
not when you kill someone driving whilst using your phone....

as for you being able to fly and do all sorts of clever multitasking (I'm so envious of your clear superiority to me), last time I was flying, didnt see many kids running about or or their bikes...
Last edited by bonerp; 2009-12-22 at 18:32.
 
RevdKathy's Avatar
RevdKathy is offline RevdKathy
2009-12-22 , 18:28
Posts: 2,173 | Thanked: 2,678 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Cornwall, UK
#29
I'd resist the idea of the insurance companies abanding those who are involved in driving accidents while on the phone.

The person to whom the payout will go is the victim, not the idiot: if your child/partner/parent is hit by some eedjit on a phone, you'd hardly be best pleased to discover they couldn't get any health cover or compensation because the driver was broke as well as stupid. Insurance isn't for the driver - it's for the other poor bugger.
__________________
Hi! I'm Kathy and I'm a Maemo Greeter! Welcome.
Useful links for newcomers: New members say hello , New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Did you know Meego.com has forums too?
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RevdKathy For This Useful Post:
That One Guy is offline That One Guy
2009-12-22 , 18:37
Posts: 377 | Thanked: 97 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ US
#30
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
Several years ago a woman almost struck my then 5-year-old son with her car.
Hope the kid's OK. I mean it.

She was backing out of a parking spot, chatting on her cell phone, in a school parking lot full of small children.
So if one idiot does something stupid, does that mean we have to have a law against it to "protect" the masses?

"Invasive" laws are designed to protect the innocents from the idiots. That often fails to be properly considered by those believing they are inconvenienced.
Invasive laws? Such as car seatbelt laws? Never mind, that seat belts kill just about as many people as not wearing seat belts. Now, granted, even the powers t be know better, since most of the "sane" states in the US make seatbelt infractions a secondary, not a primary infraction.

I don't have a problem with laws in a society. I have a problem with idiotic laws in a society.

I've never felt an unavoidable need to use my cell phone in a school zone. I don't have any problem focusing on my purpose at that time and then using the phone in a safer situation. I do not understand the mindset of those who fight this sort of law.
While I agree with you on cell phone use while driving through a school zone, where do we draw the line? I mean, we already have to do 5mph (yes, I have seen 5MPH speed signs through school sones when the kiddies are out and about). What else should we do in the name of not running over a kid? Maybe we should park our cars at one end of the school zone, and walk to the other end, where our cars will magically be waiting for us?

How about and this is a grand idea, schools teach kids basic physics? You see a 2 ton vehicle is coming at you, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!

"Oh, but the kid didn't see the car that was legally on the road, while he/she was jaywalking", some would say. How about we impose some school laws on the kids? Don't walk around with your ipod earphones jammed so far up your ears they're touching the brain? How about we turn down that Miley Cyrus song a bit, while we're walking? Oh, even better, how about we don't yap on the phone, or text our friends when we're walking through an area where there might be these things called moving cars?

I lean libertarian, but I'm no extremist. So do I support cell phone restrictions?

You betcha. Keep my kids safe from the self-absorbed idiots and jerks, please. I can't always protect them.
You, of course, do what you think it's best for your kids. But I guarantee you, laws are not for everyone. If some idiot decides to talk on a cell phone around your kids, said idiot will do it every single time. No, you can't always protect your kids, this is a given. But you can "arm" your kids with a little knowledge and common sense, like I talked about a couple of paragraphs up. Why should "I" have to look out for your ignorant kids because they're too dumb to not look both ways when crossing a street, or to get out of the way when a car is backing up?

Are there instances where something like a driver running over a kid could have been avoided? You bet. But does that mean everyone is dumb enough to do it?

Now please, don't misunderstand, I'm not calling your kids ignorant or stupid. I'm speaking in general terms, here.
 
Reply
Page 3 of 9 12 3 45 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:46.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top