Does this risk change if you consider a sufficiently long period of time? Presumably for a given trip you spend more time intoxicated than you do checking or responding to a message on your phone.
+1.
You can stop using your phone if you enter a risky environment. You can't stop being drunk.
In context, in fact, it's actually a promotion: by treating a MacBook as "just" a device, it finally gets the same quality of sync functionality as its iOS peers. It has been trailing in this respect for a long time -- you couldn't get Mac-to-Mac calendar sync, for example, without shelling out $100/yr. (Yes, there have been workarounds, like going through Google or Yahoo. They've never been very good.)
What's useful about the "demotion" is that it's actually additive: OS X used to be thought of as the server; now, it can act as both a server and a client. Hopefully, this will eventually extend to direct peer-to-peer connections, so that one iTunes library can be synced with another (just as if it were an iPod), or one laptop can play video on another laptop's screen. I'm guardedly optimistic.
Do you push to have as many sent electronically as possible?
I wish we lived in a world in which there was a secure electronic equivalent to document delivery. The technology exists, but nobody uses it.
As it is, the standard is for every company I deal with to require a separate login which gives me a web interface to tracking down the documents I need. Maybe they'll send a generic email when something new arrives. The problem is that this raises the convenience barrier so high that I rarely see the documents I'm being sent when they arrive — it happens when I'm already on the site and looking around. Which means I have to remember to go to the site.
When I get something in the mail, in contrast, I can look at it immediately, and then if necessary I can put it in a to-do box, which gives me a clear indication, in one place, of all the stuff I need to deal with.
+1.
I'm sure I'm just ignorant, but it sure sounds to me like somebody in Microsoft management didn't get the joke when they saw Gmail Motion.
Every version of the Bible that I have read, KJV, NIV, ETC, agree on one thing - Faith is expected to be blind. Wanting anything even vaguely resembling proof is a sin.
Is the Sermon on the Mount authoritative enough for you?
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Given that Web-based apps are typically free, I'm a bit skeptical about #1. But guess which explanation made the headline?
On the other hand, if an American soldier dies because of our actual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, well, thats a clear and present danger, etc, etc, bs bs bs.
Do you really believe this without qualification? That under no circumstances should the free flow of information be inhibited by the government, even if it means people will die?
I think most people understand this to be a matter of degrees -- if you don't think WikiLeaks's releases are serious national security problems, then you would probably still at least agree that it would be possible for WikiLeaks to release information that *would* be a serious national security problem. And so the argument against Thiessen's article isn't that his line of reasoning is fundamentally wrong, but just about where you draw the line.
Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. is a Western Washington District Court case regarding the applicability of first sale doctrine to software . . . Date decided: May 20th, 2008
That's hardly the same thing, although it may fit the description in the summary. If you watch the video, you'll see that the Honda vehicle allows the rider to glide around in any direction, kind of like a wheeled stool; the unicycle you're linking to only moves in one dimension (forward or back). It also doesn't maintain left/right balance at all.
It should go without saying that these three self-balancing vehicles—the Segway, the Honda vehicle, and your unicycle—are designed with significantly different applications in mind, despite sharing some similar technology. The Honda vehicle seems best-suited for maneuvering indoors, not as a replacement for your car/bike.
Once it starts to catch on, it will be mandated for ALL children, ages ~3-15.
Arguing against a "think of the children" fallacy with a slippery slope fallacy. Classic.
making copies for personal use and then playing them while your friends come over is illegal
"Personal use" seems like a pretty reasonable approximation to "fair use," as far as school children are concerned. Why would they mention "making copies for personal use" at all if they're presenting all copying as illegal?
Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!
