Who gives one?

You aren't the only one that saw that. Took me three times to see "Unions"

And your alternative is...what, again? Life is risky. This is *exactly* the sort of strategy that should be adopted. Current texting laws are essentially slaps on the wrist, and there's too much leeway to get around them (for good reason, as I should not have to disclose the contents of my cell phone when I've done nothing wrong that you can prove). If, however, the individual DOES do something wrong (hitting a pedestrian, if found to be at fault in an accident, runs off the road, etc.), then I have no problem with allowing evidence to be introduced as to their behavior. The law already makes a distinction about your thoughts and motives when committing a crime, even when the actions themselves are not crimes. Acting in a thoroughly reckless manner that results in someone's death (driving down the interstate at 150mph and hitting another vehicle, for example) can up the charge from manslaugter to murder simply because you were acting with such a willful disregard for the safety of others (in fact, in most states it's referred to as something along the lines of "depraved indifference murder"). While I don't know that I feel that texting while driving should (or shouldn't) rise to that level, I don't take issue with adjusting the charge or punishment based upon the fact that you were engaging in an activity that is known to raise the danger level substantially.

The problem with this is that it will only have a substantial impact on wealthy enough individuals. While I have no problem with making the individuals responsible for their behavior, we mandate liability insurance to ensure that the VICTIM is not left stranded. If the perpetrator is destitute, then they're not going to be able to pay (see: blood from turnips). What might be a better idea would be to require the individual to repay the insurance company whatever they paid the victim. In this way, the victim still gets their money, and the insurance company might be able to recover at least SOME of what was paid out, which they would not have before.

Has anyone else noticed that at the end of the meta keywords for her page is "Edible Computer Chips"?

Wrong. There is a finite amount of VALUE. Monetary denominations are not limited.

Or, of course, the fact that some people like the way a book *feels*. The way a page feels when you turn it. While simulated page turns are nice eye candy, an e reader doesn't provide the tactile feedback of a physical object.

The point is that *both* paths are sleeping, it's just varying the amount. Any modern processor has sub-millisecond timing measurement facilities, so it's trivial enough to time how long the actual "work" takes, then sleep for the difference up to your maximum amount (that's the point of padding an operation that takes a maximum of, say, 100ms to 150ms). Because you're *never* going to take exactly 150ms, it would be virtually impossible (if not outright impossible) to detect the difference.

I live in a faraday cage, you insensitive clod!