> You can administer and control (to some extent), and wipe the phone using ActiveSync. If you're using BES, I assume you have an Exchange server? Well then, you're all set

I assume you haven't used BES. It's understandable why you think ActiveSync might be an adequate replacement. (hint: the level of fine-grained control offered by BES is way more reaching than what an administrator can do with ActiveSync.)

> ActiveSync provides security policies too

If you're comparing mere ActiveSync security policies with BES security policies, clearly ActiveSync is secure enough for you.

The bottomline is, almost all road accidents are caused by jerks, or people who have no idea how to drive yet somehow got their licences. About the only ways to reduce fatality on the road is to

1. make the road test about 5 times tougher. If you're in north america, 20 times tougher
2. enforce road rules with heavy-hands on top of severe punishments

Since many if not most politicians are either jerks or people who have no idea how to drive yet got their licences, I doubt they'll actually make any real effort to reduce road death.

Therefore, road death cannot be meaningfully reduced. Thus, effort is better spent on preventing some other deaths, such as....flu.

QED

No matter how you would like to view things, this is not the intent of copyright. Copyright does not protect ideas. Even Patents don't. Let me say it one more time:

                                          The Copying Of Ideas Are Completely Legal And You See It Everyday.

If the mere copying of ideas were against copyright, any company that makes pretty much anything is liable for lawsuits.

Agreed. Wish I had some mod points to mod this up. If not being killed in traffic accidents, the people who cause traffic accidents will kill themselves and/or people around them one way or another. Human incompetence in incurable.

They also are more likely to be jackasses, too. So I'd much prefer a prevention of flu than fatalities from traffic accidents.

It sounded aweful in most anything compared with the Roland SCC-1, which IMHO bests the CD quality audio. The maker of that video seemed to be fooled by its slightly newer age.

Hogan: took pictures of the phone intact, and return phone to owner ASAP.
Gizmodo: buy said pictures from Hogan, publish story.

Everyone is happpy, well, except Apple - but then, all of the above steps are legal so there wouldn't be anything they could do.

Some people just don't think with their brains.

Don't you think, that the reason iPhones are close to perfect, is because of the super-tight approval process.... Not at all in the App Store, but only in the build and design of it. There, fixed it for ya.

> Having only one but not the other leads to other legal avenues

So having only Mens Rea but without Actus Reus still "leads to other lebal avenues"? Is it equivalent to committing a thought crime?

A 90 years old wants to walk again after years of immobility probably wouldn't care any cancer that may or even WILL come up 10 years down the road. However, a 25 years old probably has a different opinion.

This is the problem. FDA either approves or disapproves a treatment for everyone, it doesn't say, "if you think you have maybe 10 years to live anyway this should be okay".

At the very least it'll bring down frivolous lawsuits from individuals against individuals and the number of these lawsuits will drop.

Lawyers will also be a lot more likely to defend individuals against corporations in a frivolous lawsuits if the loser pays, because they can use judgement to see how likely the case can be won.

Without a loser-pays system, it's a matter of when, not if, that the individual defendants will run out of resources. With a loser-pays system, sure, there's a risk, but even being a risk is a lot less probable than surely running out of resources.

This is especially true in a case like this one, where the chances of the corporation winning is exactly nil - the purpose of this third trial is nothing but to squeeze the defendant dry - RIAA doesn't care even if it loses.

In other words, a loser-pays system will take away much of the incentive that makes corporations think they can screw someone over by dragging on a suit they know they cannot win.

I haven't in the past, but I guess it's a good time to start doing so.

> Right-of-way is an implied system, not a hard set of rules.

If I define a rule as something that carries a punishment when you violate it, then right-of-way is a hard set of rules. Even if your jurisdiction does not define it, your car insurance company most likely does. At least where I live, when a collision occurs, one driver must be at fault. Who's at fault is determined by right-of-way rules.

Some right-of-way rules in the laws are not highlighted as such, so they may be difficult to spot. For example, if a pedestrian gets killed crossing the road where he should not be crossing, provided that the driver is in compliance with the laws, the pedestrian is totally at fault thus the driver can go home-free.

Generally, if you're in compliance to laws in terms of passing, cutting lanes, signalling, turning, and stopping, you're in compliance with right-of-way rules.

> If someone decides to give up their right-of-way to you, then you are entitled to slowly and safely proceed to accept the right-of-way from the other motorist.

Although an intention to give up a right-of-way is easy to see, it is impossible to prove after an accident has happened. What if the other driver changes their mind, and you run into an accident as a result? Good luck proving that they have yielded their right-of-way.

When I decide to give up my right-of-way, I do it in very defined situations (like when 2 lanes must zipper-merge), and in a bounded manner. e.g. I limit myself to allow 1 or 2 cars, but no more, to merge in front of me at a busy parking lot exit to not agitate drivers waiting behind my car.

> If two motorists get in an accident because of right-of-way issues, most officers would at the very least give the driver with the right-of-way a warning to not insist on their right-of-way (as most states laws have a clause to this effect).

This is interesting, please cite some such laws - especially after you've said that right-of-way is an "implied system, not a hard set of rules". As far as I understand, insisting on right-of-way does not break any law.

The law is sharing-the-road codified. I believe one should not break the law, but also not do more than what the laws tell us to. The "above-and-beyond" thing, when applied to traffic laws, is a cause of a lot of accidents, and if people follows the rules as literally as possible and drive as much like robots as possible, I believe there'll be a lot fewer accidents.

This is mostly the way I strive to drive - and may I add one thing, since I saw your word "indecisive".

Be decisive.

(everything below - when I write "you" I don't literally mean "you")

It means, for example, whether let or not let another person to merge. Whether to pass or not to pass. Whether to run that amber or not.

From what I've seen, a lot of accidents are made when people act half-way during a binary decision - if you let him merge, make enough room. If you don't, don't give him the false illusion that he has room to merge. The in-between action is to leave *just* enough room while thinking, and it's the most dangerous action.

Another example, if you want to pass, clearly speed up and pass. If you don't, stay back. The in-between action is to stay at the other car's blind spot while thinking - again, the most dangerous action.